A weaker XSL?

[Paul Prescod]

"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
 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

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;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)