A weaker XSL?
paul at prescod.net
Fri Feb 5 14:56:51 GMT 1999
"Matthew Sergeant (EML)" wrote:
> I guess what I should have said was "Why not use CSS then". If we're
> talking about an XSL that doesn't do transformations then it's CSS you
> should use. The perl example I guess was a bad idea, but I just meant what
> we seemed to be talking about was tag matching/replacing with
> programmability. CSS2 covers that.
I could be wrong, but I don't believe that CSS2 can take XML conforming to
one DTD and transform it into XML conforming to another DTD.
There is a transformation language called "STTS3" based on CSS syntax but
I must admit that I would prefer to see a simple transformation language
use a subset of XSL syntax.
> > I'm told that these are reasons also to use Perl if you can stand it.
> You missed a smiley there I assume.
>From the Simpson's:
Teenager 1: "Man, that cannonball guy is so cool."
Teenager 2: "Er. Are you being sarcastic?"
Teenager 1: "Uh. Hmm. I can't even tell anymore."
Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself
"Remember, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did,
but she did it backwards and in high heels."
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev