- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 21:04:12 +0000
- To: Tobie Langel <tobie.langel@gmail.com>
- CC: "spec-prod@w3.org Prod" <spec-prod@w3.org>
On 12/12/2014 18:40, Tobie Langel wrote: > Would XPath 3.0[1] be a good example of the output of that authoring tool? well personally I prefer MathML 3 [1]:-) I'm not on the XSLT WG so I don't know how far they have customised xmlspec or whether it's now so different as to be not xmlspec at all. MathML is more or less recognisable xmlspec (although we forked it back before XSLT 1 was a REC) xml entities [2] is more or less vanilla xmlspec without any additions (as it is such a simple document) In addition I just saw a transition request today for xproc which apparently uses docbook+xslt rather than xmlspec+xslt the draft says <meta name="generator" content="DocBook XSL 2.0 Stylesheets V2.0.7" /> (not sure the URL for that is public but you can find it:-) David [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML3/ [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-entity-names/
Received on Friday, 12 December 2014 21:04:56 UTC