Subject: RE: [xsl] XSLT1.1 From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@xxxxxx> Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 21:05:46 +0200 |
> From: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Michael Kay > Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 7:12 PM > To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [xsl] XSLT1.1 > > > > > > Indeed. I thought it had been withdrawn... > > > There has never been an intention to withdraw the draft. There > has been for > some while a stated intent to reissue the XSLT 1.1 WD with a note stating > that there is no plan to develop it further (a subtle distinction). This > reissue has been held up by procedural hassles to do with > reissuing the XSLT > 2.0 requirements so they no longer refer to the XSLT 1.1 WD, but instead > subsume the published XSLT 1.1 requirements - or at least, that > subset which > the WG still intends to pursue. I see. Thanks for the clarification. Sort of proves that the current status of the documents on http://www.w3.org isn't optimal, right? XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] XSLT1.1, Michael Kay | Thread | RE: [xsl] keys fast for lookups? at, Mark Feblowitz |
[xsl] Generic Select again, srinivas kanakapura | Date | [xsl] not wellformed contents of xs, Lisa Rupe |
Month |