This is the mail archive of the
docbook-tools-discuss@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the docbook-tools project.
Re: was something else - now SGML and XML
- To: David Mason <dcm at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: was something else - now SGML and XML
- From: Norman Walsh <ndw at nwalsh dot com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:02:59 -0500
- Cc: docbook-tools-discuss at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <951281049.19725.ezmlm@sourceware.cygnus.com> <200002231643.LAA22211@devserv.devel.redhat.com>
- Reply-to: Norman Walsh <ndw at nwalsh dot com>
/ David Mason <dcm@redhat.com> was heard to say:
| > If you're referring to IE5 support for XSL, it's so badly broken
| > that it's just about useless. (Worse than useless, in fact.)
|
| Is that true - I, obviously, don't use IE but I see a lot of traffic on
| the DocBook lists from people who do and despite the fact that they
Which lists?
| are usually trying to work around some problem - there sure seems to
| be a lot of people using it. Is that true or am I trapped in a good
| marketing scheme?
It doesn't support <xsl:number>, or variables, or named
templates, or a half a dozen other things. I've toyed with XSL
stylesheets for sdocbook, but you can't even number footnotes or
sections fer cryin' out loud.
I'm sure there are lots of people trying to use it, and they've
got my sympathy. If you're doing server-side stuff with tabular
XML data extracted from some database and your injecting it into
HTML coded in some other tool, it probably does some job fairly
well. But that's not a job I have to do, thank goodness!
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Curiosity never killed anything
http://nwalsh.com/ | except maybe a few hours.