>>>>> Brandon Ibach <bibach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

  >    So, given how well this seems to work, why isn't the XSL WG just
  > defining an alternate syntax for DSSSL?

It isn't?  Oops, I must've missed something there...

  > Why are they reinventing the functionality that DSSSL already
  > provides?  (If I'm misinterpreting what the WG is doing, please
  > let me know...)

Well, it seems that XSL allows a more declarative specification on
what rules to apply.  I think.  But then, I know next to nothing about
DSSSL and only a little bit about XSL.

I wish some guru would jump in and enlighten me :-)

kai
-- 
You ate somebody? -- Just a leg. -- That's terrible! -- Not with mustard.
(Terry Pratchett: Interesting Times)


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