Re: Venting

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