Subject: RE: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments From: DPawson@xxxxxxxxxxx Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 08:44:07 -0000 |
Joshua Allen > As someone who's invested quite a bit of energy running around giving > developers talks on "writing portable XSLT", I will agree that even > XSLT 1.0 is not guaranteed to be portable. But most developers who > I've talked to are surprised that "portable XSLT" is actually > different from "XSLT 1.0". So I hope we haven't given up on portable > XSLT - sure there are warts, but this is version 1.0 right? Surely > nobody is suggesting that, since portability is not guaranteed > in 1.0, we should just forget about it altogether? Users really > do care about portability, and I hope I haven't been wasting my time > encouraging them.. I'd hope not too Joshua. If your papers are not copyright, I'd love to see them on the web? Regards DaveP XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Steve Muench | Thread | RE: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Maddy |
[xsl] W3 XSLT 2.0 Requirements -- 2, Dimitre Novatchev | Date | RE: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments, Michael Kay |
Month |