"S. Alexander Jacobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, if they are making sure that all platforms have a scheme interpreter,
> why not make the spec language agnostic. i.e. allow the user to use any
> language that can be compiled/translated into scheme (by code written in
> scheme?).
Your a
On Tue, 2 Mar 1999, Philip Wadler wrote:
> Bad news: The proposal to split XSL refers to the current working
> draft, which already contains a transformation language (Section 2)
> and a style language (Section 3). Preliminary versions of the
> transformation language are already in wide use (inc
"S. Alexander Jacobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is a campaign going on to separate XSL (eXtensible style
> language) into two separate languages
> 1. a transformation language
> 2. a style language
>
> I suggest that now is the opportunity to make a convincing case that the
> transfo
There is a campaign going on to separate XSL (eXtensible style
language) into two separate languages
1. a transformation language
2. a style language
I suggest that now is the opportunity to make a convincing case that the
transformational language should be a functional programming language.
HoF
