- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 17:04:45 -0400
- To: "John Boyer" <jboyer@uwi.com>
- Cc: "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 12:51 99/10/21 -0700, John Boyer wrote: Reagle wrote: >3. I don't think we should have an XSL and XSLT. One or the other, though >the spec is confusing about it. > ><John> >I got the impression that XSL could give you the final HTML that a person >would look at. I also could not tell on a single 14 hour Saturday which >part of this could not be done by the XSLT, but that's at least partly >because the combined spec length is over 350 pages. I thought it best for >now to allow a full stylesheet to be put in and let it modify the data to >the point where it represents what the user actually sees. Again, this was >in keeping with the motto "What you see is what you sign" which I think was >reiterated in that email from Don. ></John> > >1. XSLT is a subset of XSL that specifies the transformation methods, XSL >also includes the formatting object syntax. >2. XSL is merely one sort of XSLT used for formatting. > >I opted for #2. > ><John>It is not clear what #2 means. In the spec, you seem to have chosen >XSLT. Depending on how I read 1 and 2, you either did or did not choose XSL. >Is there some newer draft we don't have? ></John> By that I mean we have a XSLT blob. One particular type of XSLT is to transform a source document into a target document with XSL formatting. _________________________________________________________ Joseph Reagle Jr. Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org XML-Signature Co-Chair http://w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Thursday, 21 October 1999 17:04:48 UTC