Re: Fw: XSL-T, XTL.... or XQL?

Hi Oren.

I almost dismissed what you said here as a simple upbeat view point until I
actually thought about it and realised it was quite a novel requirement,
and a very shrewed statement, that anything implimented in the XSL Rec
would have to go into the XQL Rec.

I love the idea, but can you see the XQL community going for it?
(remembering that we have some very big, very conservative players
regarding XQL as their "home turf").

Cheers
     Guy.





xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 03/09/99 12:55:00 AM

To:   xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc:    (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID)
Subject:  Fw: XSL-T, XTL.... or XQL?





I'd rather see it as locking XQL to be a superset of XSL, instead. I
strongly believe that this should be a requirement of any proposed XQL
language.
Have fun,
    Oren Ben-Kiki

 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list






 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list