Re: why split? [was RE: XSL intent survey]
> It just seems to me we have XSL transformation syntax, which can be refined > and developed, and on top of that we have proposed flow > objects that may be *optionaly* used (sounds like a superset to me). I'm > not understanding what the problem is with this arrangement. Yes, except you're supposed to call them formatting objects these days, lest you show your misspent dsssl youth. But of course they may only optionally be used if they are there. Hence my argument against removing them. > Please feel free to knock holes in my statements, Sorry. All seems reasonable to me. David XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format