;-)
--- Chris Bowditch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Glen Mazza wrote:
>
> > They're coming very close (I suspect in a few
> weeks at
> > the latest) to having a "Last Call" version--would
> it
> > be acceptable for you at that stage? I don't mind
> > waiting a little longer.
>
> Second edit
Glen Mazza wrote:
They're coming very close (I suspect in a few weeks at
the latest) to having a "Last Call" version--would it
be acceptable for you at that stage? I don't mind
waiting a little longer.
Second edition of working Draft was released today :-)
Chris
> -Original Message-
> From: Glen Mazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --- "Andreas L. Delmelle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
Hi Glen,
> > the XSL 1.1 WD, but since that's all it is ATM, a
> > 'Working Draft', changing
> > their namespace might be a bit premature (?[*]),
>
> They're coming
--- "Andreas L. Delmelle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> the XSL 1.1 WD, but since that's all it is ATM, a
> 'Working Draft', changing
> their namespace might be a bit premature (?[*]),
They're coming very close (I suspect in a few weeks at
the latest) to having a "Last Call" version--would it
be a
> -Original Message-
> From: Glen Mazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Hi Glen,
Very much in favor of changing the extension elements' names to conform with
the XSL 1.1 WD, but since that's all it is ATM, a 'Working Draft', changing
their namespace might be a bit premature (?[*]), unless we
sounds good to me... +1
On Dec 12, 2004, at 8:01 AM, Glen Mazza wrote:
Team,
Silly confirmation question here -- is the 1.1 XSL
Spec's fo:bookmark-tree, fo:bookmark, and
fo:bookmark-title [1] basically the same thing as our
fox:bookmarks, fox:outline, and fox:title,
respectively? (i.e., they're f
