[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
FW: XSL intent survey
Subject: FW: XSL intent survey From: Jonathan.Vyse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:56:54 -0000 |
Here's my vote (in public) -----Original Message----- From: Oren Ben-Kiki [mailto:oren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: 19 November 1998 12:26 To: XSL list Subject: XSL intent survey As a continuation to the XSL requirements thread, and since I got a favorable response so far, I think we should go ahead and conduct this survey. The survey questions are as follows: 1: I feel that the W3 organization should address the transformation vs. formatting issue: yes 2: We need separate transformation and formatting (style sheet) languages: yes If you answered "yes" or "undecided", for question (2), then: 3: The transformation language should be (based on): XSL Note: XSL here stands for the transformation part of the current draft; CSS refers to proposals to extend CSS to do transformations, with a removal of the formatting specific features. 4: The formatting language should be (based on): XSL Note: XSL here stands for the formatting part of the current draft; CSS refers to the current state of affairs. If you answered "no", for question (2), then: 5: The combined language should be based on: XSL/CSS/Other:... Note: XSL refers to XSL as it stands today; CSS refers to proposals to extend CSS to include transformations. Finally: 6: Any further comments: XML has wider implications than storing information to be presented visually. An example of this would be transforming from one DTD to another in an eCommerce gateway. It therefore seems logical that XSL should be split to address transformations seperately from styling. It also seems sensible as a way of speeding the standardisation process. If both can be expressed as XML this is not a big deal. It seems very sensible to produce a style specification language which based on flow objects and so neutral and widely applicable. I am not happy about scripting in both transformation and styling languages as it may introduce side effects. The processing instruction should be adequate to achieve most things. There is a requirement to pass parameters between the external environment and the processing instruction to alter its context. Perhaps something along the lines of java's System properties passed via -D on the command line. ... Notes: To vote, just forward this message to xsl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx and replace the line following each question (currently listing alternatives) with your answer. Names and addresses of voters would be kept on my host just to prevent double votes and allow updates - a second vote would override the previous one. I don't think posting the names and addresses would serve any purpose other then giving spammers a convenient list :-) I'll post intermediate results in a week and final results in two weeks. I'd appreciate a reference to the "right" address in the W3 organization to forward the final results to. Share & Enjoy, Oren Ben-Kiki XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
XSL intent survey, Oren Ben-Kiki | Thread | Re: XSL intent survey, Flow Simulation |
In favor of separating transformati, Daniel Seltzer | Date | Re: XSL intent survey, Flow Simulation |
Month |