• To: jeni@j...
• Subject: Re: XSLT 2.0 and XSL(-FO) 2.0
• From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
• Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 11:28:58 +0100
• Cc: evan@e..., xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <1181819988344.20020513112423@j...> (message fromJeni Tennison on Mon, 13 May 2002 11:24:23 +0100)
• References: <NDBBLMPNADEOOKGELJALMEBICJAA.evan@e...><200205130917.KAA23038@p...> <1181819988344.20020513112423@j...>

> Do you think that it would make sense for the *only* validation to be
> done on a document to be validation dictated by the stylesheet?

yes.

David

_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XSLT 2.0 and XSL(-FO) 2.0
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>

• References:
  • RE: XSLT 2.0 and XSL(-FO) 2.0
    • From: "Evan Lenz" <evan@e...>
  • Re: XSLT 2.0 and XSL(-FO) 2.0
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: XSLT 2.0 and XSL(-FO) 2.0
    • From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...>

• Prev by Date: RE: frustration (was RE: XPath 2.0 )
• Next by Date: RE: PSVI formalization
• Previous by thread: Re: XSLT 2.0 and XSL(-FO) 2.0
• Next by thread: Re: XSLT 2.0 and XSL(-FO) 2.0
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread