Subject: Re: <xsl-script> From: Paul Prescod <paul@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 19:05:45 -0500 |
James Robertson wrote: > > Yes, the full copy of Omnimark is very expensive. > But when you factor in all the real costs of > using other tools, I think it stacks up pretty > well. No doubt that is true for you but most people will have a different cost/benefit analysis. > How many hours have people spent chasing > the XSL spec now, and finding ways of making > code work in broken implentations? That's hardly any prediction of XSL's future. People chase the spec. because they want to learn about what they will be using in the future. > And XSL will never match the full functionality > of Omnimark. That's probably true. And Omnimark does not yet match the full functionality of XSL. They use a completely different model and have completely different strengths and goals. -- Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco Earth will soon support only survivor species -- dandelions, roaches, lizards, thistles, crows, rats. Not to mention 10 billion humans. - Planet of the Weeds, Harper's Magazine, October 1998 XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: <xsl-script>, Matthew MacKenzie | Thread | Re: <xsl-script>, Marcus Carr |
XLink implemented in XSL, Paul Prescod | Date | Re: size?, Paul Prescod |
Month |