RE: [xsl] FW: [svg-developers] Re: SVG 1.0 is now a W3C Recommendation

Subject: RE: [xsl] FW: [svg-developers] Re: SVG 1.0 is now a W3C Recommendation
From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@xxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 12:08:41 +0200
> From: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of David
> Carlisle
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 11:54 AM
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [xsl] FW: [svg-developers] Re: SVG 1.0 is now a W3C
> Recommendation
>
>
>
> Chris Bayes wrote:
>
> > I think that is a bit unfair. Microsoft was so early to adopt
> > xsl technology they developed and released it while it was still
> > at working draft stage. It was a very good version of the working
> > draft spec. Where they went wrong was not uncluding their xslt
> > version with ie5. But as they had jumped in at a very early stage
> > and shipped systems that included the wd version they had to support
> > it. They were also one of the first fully compliant xslt processors
> > around for quite a while (Saxon was the first and xt was never
> > fully implemented)
>
>
> I think that's being unduly kind to Microsoft (a crime that can't go
> unpunished:-)
>
> The IE5 "XSL" isn't really a good implementation of the December '98 WD
> It has lots of extensions and the documentation makes no distinction
> between what is in the draft and what isn't, but that's really only a
> small point, what they really did wrong was take a draft that said

Actually, it's not even an implementation of *any* working draft I could
find. It's just similar.



 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list


Current Thread