- From: Rivers-Moore, Daniel <daniel.rivers-moore@rivcom.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 17:38:24 +0100
- 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 UTC