Subject: Re: Venting From: Paul Prescod <paul@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 14:57:40 -0600 |
Chris Maden wrote: > > [Sean McGrath] > > Maybe I've missed something and someone can provide a pointer, but I > > have not heard any noises from Microsoft about implementing FO's in > > XSL in IE. My impression from Microsoft's stuff is that they see XSL > > as a way of generating HTML - a transformation language only. > > To me, this is an argument for keeping the specs together. I don't > want a browser that doesn't implement FOs to be able to claim XSL > compliance. (Given various browsers' track records, that probably > won't stop them. Does anyone remember "HTML 3.0 compatible!"?) Nobody is proposing that a transformation language based on the first part of the XSL specification should be called "XSL". It's a strawperson. XSL would be the combination of the transformation language and the formatting object language. -- Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco "Remember, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did, but she did it backwards and in high heels." --Faith Whittlesey XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Venting, Chris Maden | Thread | Re: Venting, Paul Prescod |
RE: venting, Didier PH Martin | Date | Re: Venting, Don Park |
Month |