[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 02:33:04PM +0200, Eric van der Vlist wrote:
> Le mardi 27 septembre 2005 ? 14:15 +0200, Jens Stavnstrup a ?crit :
[...]
>> Except that statement is not correct, but remain there for historical
>> reasons.
>
> Hmmm... This statement is in a page updated 2005/08/26 by Liam Quin and
> I'd expect it to be accurate !
You are too kind :-)
>> XPath was originally part of XSL, but was separated a long time ago.
>> So XSL consists only of two documents (at least the 1.0 version).
>
> I don't think so several reasons:
>
> * Until XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 (if that's what you're referring
> to) become recommendations, the only rock solid specs on which
> one should rely are XSLT 1.0 and XPath 1.0 and they definitely
> describe themselves as part of the XSL family of specs.
Correct.
> * If you consider that XPath 2.0 has moved along to new areas with
> the XQuery 1.0 spec, you should also consider that XSLT 2.0 has
> done the same "migration" and XSL should be for you only one
> document (and not two).
XSLT 2.0 still depends on XPath, this time on XPath 2.0.
> Furthermore, my answer is and will remain relevant in the context of a
> question asking how XPath is related to XSL-FO!
Right :-)
Liam
--
Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
http://www.holoweb.net/~liam/
Words and Pictures from Old Books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
|
