• To: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
• Subject: Re: so why don't more browsers support XSLT?
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: 16 Nov 2001 11:43:04 -0500
• Cc: sean.mcgrath@p..., xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <200111161150.LAA08592@p...>
• References: <PJEGLGKIAHHKOPGBPEIGOEEICBAA.donalds@i...><PJEGLGKIAHHKOPGBPEIGOEEICBAA.donalds@i...><5.0.2.1.0.20011116100756.01fdd370@p...> <200111161150.LAA08592@p...>

On Fri, 2001-11-16 at 06:50, David Carlisle wrote:
> For displaying arbitrary XML it seems that a transformation language is
> always going to be required. It doesn't have to be XSLT: dsssl, ominimark
> perl, any programming language with dom access, would all do. But
> you need _something_  unless your XML is so close to HTML that CSS can
> be used. 

Huh?  All you need to use CSS is a document structure that's similar to
the structure you want to present.  No weird HTML magic there.
 
-- 
Simon St.Laurent
"Every day, in every way, I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: so why don't more browsers support XSLT?
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>

• References:
  • so why don't more browsers support XSLT?
    • From: "Don Smith" <donalds@i...>
  • Re: so why don't more browsers support XSLT?
    • From: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...>
  • Re: so why don't more browsers support XSLT?
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>

• Prev by Date: validation with IE
• Next by Date: Re: validation with IE
• Previous by thread: Re: so why don't more browsers support XSLT?
• Next by thread: Re: so why don't more browsers support XSLT?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread