Re: Interactive XML

[Martin Bryan]
> Others share the concern. The XML/EDI community has made a number of
> comments on the current, inadequate, XSL requirements statement, and
> has repeatedly pointed out that a generalized mechanism is a
> must. Unfortunately it looks like we won't get it for Version 1.0,
> and will not get a date for it in this century. However, I live in
> hope and eagerly await next month's draft in the hope I will be
> proved wrong.

The next draft won't prove you wrong; it will be a fairly simple first
cut.  However, there is discussion going on in the WG about
interactivity, but the precise requirements haven't been agreed upon.
I feel that there's a consensus that we need to do, at a minimum, as
much as you can do with HTML now, and there's a pretty wide feeling
that we should do more.  But there isn't a ratified document stating
so.

-Chris, speaking only for myself and not for the WG
-- 
<!NOTATION SGML.Geek PUBLIC "-//Anonymous//NOTATION SGML Geek//EN">
<!ENTITY crism PUBLIC "-//O'Reilly//NONSGML Christopher R. Maden//EN"
"<URL>http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/crism/ <TEL>+1.617.499.7487
<USMAIL>90 Sherman Street, Cambridge, MA 02140 USA" NDATA SGML.Geek>


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