I am probably wasting my time but I want to point out that the current organization of the XSL specification is VERY CONFUSING to my users, students and readers and extremely FRUSTRATING to me. There is a generalized transformation language. There is a formatting DTD. They will probably work beautifully together someday but they do NOT BELONG IN THE SAME SPECIFICATION any more than XSL and XLink do. I know we've been over this before and it is probably not useful to start a long thread of "me toos" and "I agrees" but this is a fundamental flaw in the two languages that we know as XSL. Please put aside the political expediency of one spec. in favor of the clarity of two. -- 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
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