|
Subject: RE: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments From: Scott_Boag@xxxxxxxxx Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:24:18 -0500 |
That is my point about it being a stop-gap measure -- it will be a while
until XSLT is a general purpose transformation language. Maybe it will
never be. Good design takes time, and is interlocked with other standards.
It's better for us to limit the ability of XSLT while we develop good
designs for things like the document() function, grouping, etc. Extensions
also allow vendors and users to prototype ideas, and then have the WG learn
from them.
-scott
Tobias Reif
<tobiasreif@xxxxxxxxx> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent by: cc: (bcc: Scott Boag/CAM/Lotus)
owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments
rytech.com
02/13/2001 04:17 AM
Please respond to xsl-list
--- Scott_Boag@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
[...]
> And, if you truly want interoperable stylesheets,
> don't use extensions.
Don't make it necessary to use extensions; as soon as
XSLT is a general-purpose transformation-language for
XML, including all needs described by developers, the
need will decrease to a minimum.
Tobi
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
| Current Thread |
|---|
|
| <- Previous | Index | Next -> |
|---|---|---|
| Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Scott_Boag | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Francis Norton |
| Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Scott_Boag | Date | [xsl] does sun xsltc compiler provi, anand awasthi |
| Month |