[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Splitting XSL
Paul Prescod <paul@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Good point! Do we all agree that the physical organization of the >specification is irrelevant? What we need is for the transformation and >formatting languages to be > > a) separately named > b) separately conformance tested I was going to say, separate DTDs, but it caused me to wonder: As of today, there'd be one DTD for XSL stylesheets, so we can verify the input to an XSL processor. There was talk about being able to verify that a given XSL stylesheet converts documents in one DTD into documents in another. Suppose this is possible, at least in theory (BTW, is anyone working on such a thing? It would be a lovely tool). To verify the canonical use of XSL stylesheets - use within a full XSL processor as per the current specs - you would _have_ to define a DTD for the 'fo' "vocabulary". Given that there must be two DTDs, there must also be two languages, and two names... It might turn out to be easier to convince the W3C of this then we originally thought. Have fun, Oren Ben-Kiki 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
|