On 2002.05.03 04:56 Peter B. West wrote:
> What would be even more generally useful would be to get the spec 
> editors to put up a site, possibly with disclaimers plastered all over 
> it, to which they post FAQs on the spec. They must get a lot of 
> repeating questions from the various parties who are trying to 
> implement. I'm not subscribed to the xsl-editors mailing list (which I 
> suppose I should be.) Is anyone else subscribed? If so, have requests 
> like this been made before?

I'm not subrscibed either.
Looking at the archives it seems most discussions are about xslt.

I'm almost thinking of going a step further.
Maybe we could add annotations to the spec to clarify these things with 
our understanding and then present this information.
It seems to me that the spec writers are not as involved as they should be.

I just ran the spec through FOP. It seems to work okay (along with a 
number of unimplemented features and large memory usage).

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to