Re: venting

Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> 
> hear hear. keep the S in XSL! 

No one is arguing to take the S out of XSL. We are proposing to take the
*transformations* out of XSL.

Do you agree that the first part of XSL is good for transformations?
Do you agree that transformations are useful?
Do you agree that it should be legal *in some contexts* to implement a
transformation engine without a style engine?
Do you agree that processors of this sort should be governed by standards?

> Having destroyed DSSSL by promising the
> world and loads of sweeties with XSL, I take it as sad
> that the big boys now want to jump ship, and leave formatting stuck in
> the doldrums for another decade.

Sebastian, I don't believe that having one specification is going to force
Microsoft to implement a formatting engine if they don't feel like it. It
hasn't so far.

 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