Gerrit, I respectfully disagree: I think we're still on topic with
XSLT when we thank, with compliments, its design as well as its
designers, practitioners and supporters for their high standards,
diligent efforts and enviable success.
So there. :-)
Cheers, Wendell
Wendell Piez | http://www.wendellpiez.com
XML | XSLT | electronic publishing
Eat Your Vegetables
_____oo_________o_o___ooooo____ooooooo_^
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Imsieke, Gerrit, le-tex
<gerrit(_dot_)imsieke(_at_)le-tex(_dot_)de> wrote:
This is so typical for Internet forums. If you say nice things to people,
they’ll point out your mistakes in these statements.
I’m humbly waiting for Tommie rebuffing my OT post.
;)
On 10.01.2014 23:10, Eliot Kimber wrote:
Note that I didn’t actually doubt the soundness of the spec—the XSLT 2
spec is one of few standards whose soundness I accept as a given :-) I
would have considered for-each-as-string-contatenation sound enough and
was pleased to learn that it was better than that.
Cheers,
E.
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail:
<mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--