Amen!

XTL for transformations. (Nothing to do with whatever Ms is doing that they
call XTL.)

XSL for styling.

XSL right now is too much like a woman trying to get dressed (style) at the
same time she's putting on her makeup (transformation). The two tend to get
smeared together and the result is none too pretty.

I also said this awhile back and got ignored.

Dave LeBlanc

At 04:04 PM 2/3/99 -0600, Paul Prescod wrote:
>I am probably wasting my time but I want to point out that the current
>organization of the XSL specification is VERY CONFUSING to my users,
>students and readers and extremely FRUSTRATING to me. There is a
>generalized transformation language. There is a formatting DTD. They will
>probably work beautifully together someday but they do NOT BELONG IN THE
>SAME SPECIFICATION any more than XSL and XLink do.
>
>I know we've been over this before and it is probably not useful to start
>a long thread of "me toos" and "I agrees" but this is a fundamental flaw
>in the two languages that we know as XSL. Please put aside the political
>expediency of one spec. in favor of the clarity of two.
>-- 
> 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
>
>
> XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
>
>


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