RE: why split? [was RE: XSL intent survey]
> From: Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx] > On the subject of a super or subset approach to XSL, wouldn't > it be the > case of transformation as the core > and formatting as the superset? Careful, that almost sounds like an argument that the two parts are separable. :) If they are separable, the question that some of us pose is whether the same language can effectively cover both -- or whether the hybrid will end up being inadequate on both accounts. (Equally, whether the same group of people have time to effectively address both.) ... Replying to a message in another thread: >I feel that maybe this discourse is >moving into considering areas that aren't really within the remit of the >original design goals of XSL, or indeed XML itself. I double-checked the XSL spec; it has an awful lot of things in there that seem pretty focussed on print in my mind. RPMD. [Reasonable People May Disagree] Personally, if XSL is only for the Web, I'd rather stick with CSS. *My* bias is that documents currently have to be created at least twice: for print & for the Web. Creating & maintaining 2 versions is a nightmare. That's what I want XML/"XSL" to fix. Scott P.S. I think I've said my piece so I'll try to be quiet for awhile. :) 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