This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: New XSL working draft published
Rick Geimer writes:
> I complained about the lack of a DTD for XSL-FO to the editors several
> times, but they seem disinterested in providing one. Perhaps more arm
> twisting from concerned users and implementors is in order?
The problem of a DTD for FO is that its danged hard. RenderX did one,
and I wish the XSL editors would either approve or disapprove it.
The lack of a DOCTYPE in the spec itself is puzzling, especially since the
thing *does* validate against a DTD.
Sebastian
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list