RE: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments

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.


                    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                                  
                    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.


Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year!

 XSL-List info and archive:

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread