Subject: RE: XSL Debate, Leventhal responds to Stephen Deach From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 11:51:55 -0400 |
Hi Jonathan, You said: 1) transformations are not important 2) procedural languages (e.g. ECMAScript+DOM) can handle transformations just fine. 3) DSSSL can be modified to better handle transformations 4) XSLT is just not a good way to transform (and if so please suggest another) Didier says: interesting questions Jonathan. I won't answer for simon, but here are my answers: 1) no, they are important 2) yes, with the right constructs (object based for example) 3) absolutely 4)again a big yes - alternatives: DSSSL, STTS, XScripts, Omnimark, Balise, etc... Depend if you prefer "()", "<>", "{}" etc... regards Didier PH Martin mailto:martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.netfolder.com XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: XSL Debate, Leventhal responds , Didier BOLF | Thread | XSLT: a discussion of alternatives , Jonathan Borden |
RE: CSS and XSL? Rotated Text?, WorldNet | Date | XSLT: a discussion of alternatives , Jonathan Borden |
Month |