Re: New XSL working draft published

[Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rick Geimer writes:
 > I complained about the lack of a DTD for XSL-FO to the editors several
 > times, but they seem disinterested in providing one. Perhaps more arm
 > twisting from concerned users and implementors is in order?


The problem of a DTD for FO is that its danged hard. RenderX did one,
and I wish the XSL editors would either approve or disapprove it.

The lack of a DOCTYPE in the spec itself is puzzling, especially since the
thing *does* validate against a DTD.

Sebastian


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list