RE: [xsl] XSLT 2.0 or XSLT 1.0 -- which is more elegant? (Wa

Subject: RE: [xsl] XSLT 2.0 or XSLT 1.0 -- which is more elegant? (Was: Re: [xsl] mixing it up: REST+XML Namespaces + XLST)
From: "Michael Kay" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 12:08:20 +0100

> Why it can't be... let's say RNG ? :o)
> 

Much of the elegance of RNG derives from the fact that it doesn't try to
associate types with nodes, it only does validation. 

Michael Kay

Current Thread
Re: [xsl] XSLT 2.0 or XSLT 1.0 -- which is more elegant? (Was: Re: [xsl] mixing it up: REST+XML Namespaces + XLST), (continued) Jirka Kosek - Tue, 19 Apr 2005 12:30:31 +0200 Jeni Tennison - Tue, 19 Apr 2005 11:33:43 +0100 Dimitre Novatchev - Tue, 19 Apr 2005 20:48:18 +1000 Dimitre Novatchev - Tue, 19 Apr 2005 20:50:11 +1000 Michael Kay - Tue, 19 Apr 2005 12:08:20 +0100 <= Jirka Kosek - Tue, 19 Apr 2005 13:14:44 +0200 Michael Kay - Tue, 19 Apr 2005 12:47:42 +0100 Dimitre Novatchev - Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:00:38 +1000 Michael Kay - Tue, 19 Apr 2005 11:38:38 +0100

Current Thread

Re: [xsl] XSLT 2.0 or XSLT 1.0 -- which is more elegant? (Was: Re: [xsl] mixing it up: REST+XML Namespaces + XLST), (continued)

<- Previous	Index	Next ->
Re: [xsl] XSLT 2.0 or XSLT 1.0 -- w, Dimitre Novatchev	Thread	Re: [xsl] XSLT 2.0 or XSLT 1.0 -- w, Jirka Kosek
Re: [xsl] XSLT 2.0 or XSLT 1.0 -- w, Dimitre Novatchev	Date	Re: [xsl] mixing it up: REST+XML Na, David Carlisle
	Month

<-prev [Thread] next->	<-prev [Date] next->
Month Index \| List Home