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. -scott 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 rytech.com 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. Tobi __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Scott_Boag | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Francis Norton |
Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Scott_Boag | Date | [xsl] does sun xsltc compiler provi, anand awasthi |
Month |