Subject: Re: New XSL working draft published From: Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:03:14 +0100 |
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
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: New XSL working draft published, Rick Geimer | Thread | Re: New XSL working draft published, Nikolai Grigoriev |
RE: writing to html files us, Jonas Nordström | Date | Re: New XSL working draft published, Nikolai Grigoriev |
Month |