Subject: RE: [xsl] basic question about xpath support of xml schema From: Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 17:04:16 -0500 |
Cheers, Wendell
Mike said: > I mean we could try and define the extensibility mechanisms and the > conformance rules such that an implementor who wanted to > support something > like RELAX could extend the language to do so.
So W3C are prepared to positively support W3C schemas, yet require those using other schemas to use extensions?
What is that American word? IEEE were very keen on it, having been prosecuted for it on a couple of occasions?
====================================================================== Wendell Piez mailto:wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Mulberry Technologies, Inc. http://www.mulberrytech.com 17 West Jefferson Street Direct Phone: 301/315-9635 Suite 207 Phone: 301/315-9631 Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 301/315-8285 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in SGML and XML ======================================================================
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] CALS tables, Andrew Welch | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSL-FO: Absolute position, G. Ken Holman |
Re: [xsl] XSL:FO newbie question, W. Eliot Kimber | Date | [xsl] sort, Frederic Leclercq |
Month |