Subject: RE: [xsl] Re: The Perils of Sudden Type-Safety in XSLT 2.0 From: "bryan" <bry@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:14:40 +0100 |
>> As type-safety is pretty much a concession to Microsoft anyway >This is rapidly becoming an urban myth, and it is rubbish. I won't try to >state Microsoft's position for them, but a change as significant as this >cannot be made if only one member organisation supports it, and that is >certainly not the case in this instance. Now I'm probably as pro-Microsoft as it is possible to get without actively conjuring up Satan and working a deal but I must say that I had the impression that Microsoft would like the type-safety, XSDL integration etc. and that they would be active proponents of it. I have not done any research on it, I have not gone around posting "This is all because of Microsoft!" anywhere because I felt to do this I should have proof, when I saw this 'Urban Myth' above however it struck me as very sensible and likely posted by someone who had that proof. You say it's wrong, that it is in fact an Urban Myth, this implies in some way (due to the slipperiness of language) that Microsoft is not a strong proponent of these things, is not exerting influence to get it done. Now I'm wondering why in the world this particular Urban Myth would arise? XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Re: The Perils of Sudden , michael . h . kay | Thread | Re: [xsl] Re: The Perils of Sudden , Francis Norton |
Re: [xsl] Re: The Perils of Sudden , michael . h . kay | Date | Re: [xsl] Re: The Perils of Sudden , Francis Norton |
Month |