W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > June 1997

RE: New work-queue item: Conditional inclusion

From: Rivers-Moore, Daniel <daniel.rivers-moore@rivcom.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 17:38:24 +0100
Message-ID: <317CDDD87D9CD011958100609712EB6B034347@FLPS-NTSERVER1>
To: "XML Working Group (E-mail)" <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
Gavin Nicol attributes the remarks below to Paul Prescod. In fact, they
were my remarks in response to Paul. My apologies for the lack of
clarity in my formatting, which did not make this sufficiently clear.

Let me clarify:

Paul Prescod wrote:
Even if XML-LANG *provided* "generic" conditional inclusion facilities,
I would advocate against
using them. Is there someone out there willing to stand up for them?

Daniel Rivers-Moore replied:

Certainly not me.
"Conditional inclusion" and "conditional exclusion" are equivalent.
Conditional exclusion can be handled by a stylesheet language which has
a style called "excluded" meaning "Do not show" and a means of
specifying when that style should be applied.

My thanks to Gavin for his confirmatory response.

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	gtn@eps.inso.com [SMTP:gtn@eps.inso.com]
	Sent:	Monday, June 09, 1997 3:49 PM
	To:	w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
	Subject:	RE: New work-queue item: Conditional inclusion

	Paul Prescod:
	>"Conditional inclusion" and "conditional exclusion" are
equivalent.
	>Conditional exclusion can be handled by a stylesheet language
which has
	>a style called "excluded" meaning "Do not show" and a means of
	>specifying when that style should be applied.

	This is true. Even on the server side, where you may tailor the
	document before sending it out via includes/excludes, it really
	boils down to having some "stylesheet" that controls what gets
	generated. 
Received on Monday, 9 June 1997 12:55:16 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 10:04:40 EDT