Re: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists as tables)

Steve Schafer wrote:
> 
> 
> Again, I don't see why that's such a bad thing. Sure, it means that
> existing code bases are going to have to be tweaked in order to
> conform to the specification, but I don't care about the angst of
> programmers (myself included). I care about the angst of all of the
> people who actually have to _use_ this stuff.

People only get to use it if programmers implement it. No commercial
vendor ever implemented DSSSL and it was not even as detailed and
precise as you propose.

 Paul Prescod


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