RE: XSLT1.1

> From: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Michael Kay
> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 7:12 PM
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE:  XSLT1.1
>
>
> >
> > Indeed. I thought it had been withdrawn...
> >
> There has never been an intention to withdraw the draft. There
> has been for
> some while a stated intent to reissue the XSLT 1.1 WD with a note stating
> that there is no plan to develop it further (a subtle distinction). This
> reissue has been held up by procedural hassles to do with
> reissuing the XSLT
> 2.0 requirements so they no longer refer to the XSLT 1.1 WD, but instead
> subsume the published XSLT 1.1 requirements - or at least, that
> subset which
> the WG still intends to pursue.

I see. Thanks for the clarification. Sort of proves that the current status
of the documents on http://www.w3.org isn't optimal, right?


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