Sebastian Rahtz wrote:

> <sort-of-humour>
> short cynical  explanations:
> 
> 1. Microsoft cannot stomach the parentheses

Can anyone?

> 2. DSSSL was not invented here

I laughed a lot when I read that, but then again I know who is on the
XSL WG. So, lets just say that the exact opposite is true.

> 3. The W3C says they'll take their ball away if it doesn't include CSS

A good point. W3C member organisations were just as keen to include CSS
functionality in XSL as they were to include DSSSL style functionality.
So, we did.

> 4. DSSSL people like ghettos

Well, they used to say that about SGML too but then XML happened and the
ghetto turned into the main street. 

> 5. Its just much more fun to start again with a mishmash

Not fun exactly, but combining the feature sets of two specifications
with broadly similar aims but significantly different design decisions
and priorities is certainly interesting.

> </sort-of-humour>
> 
> take your pick.  about the only one that convinces me is
> 
> 6. XSL is written in XML

Well, its one less parser to write.

--
Chris


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list