>Why should I worry about the language being split, and the transformation >part being carried off, and moulded to a more generic purpose, then layered >with FOs.... becaus then the focus wouldn't be on producing optimal >transformation for styling, and I fear it would get bent in several >different directions, none of which have anything to do with XML styling. There is nothing to worry about because you will have XSL that does everything you want. Why should you care if XSL just happens to be based on XTL? What should you care if XTL has some additional features that you don't need? What I don't understand is why you would oppose something that will benefit great number of people without affecting you negatively? We are not trying to hijack the XSL process. All we are asking is that we share the ride since we are going the same way. Best, Don Park Docuverse 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