[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date]

Re: W3C-transformation language petition

---

---

[Oren Ben-Kiki]
> So, fine, FOs have an advantage over CSS. Why then would they die if
> disconnected from XTL/XQL?

I don't think I asserted they will.  You asked why CSS couldn't just
be extended.

That said, it's important to remember that the transformation language
was developed to serve the purpose of styling.  It is good that it is
useful for other purposes.  But if they're separated, it's possible
(though certainly not necessary) that development will diverge and FOs
will wither because they're not easily usable with XTL.  That would be
unfortunate, since we'd have added another transformation language but
would have failed at the actual task with which we were chartered.

[me]
> >The problems that FOs are attempting to solve are hard.  The
> >solutions will be complex, whatever delimiters the syntax uses.

[Oren]
> No argument. The same holds for CSS, of course. In fact, the
> problems being solved are almost exactly the same :-)

No, and this is the crux of my point.  CSS set out to solve a simple
subset of formatting problems, and solved that problem space well.
Extending it to solve a more complex formatting problem space would
probably jeopardize its success in the simple sphere.  Let's keep the
simple stylesheet language simple and usable for simple problems, and
use a complex language for complex problems.  Making the simple
language complex makes it harder to use for simple problems.  Some
argue that CSS2 already goes too far (though I don't agree, but the
allegations alone are evidence of a problem).

-Chris
-- 
<!NOTATION SGML.Geek PUBLIC "-//Anonymous//NOTATION SGML Geek//EN">
<!ENTITY crism PUBLIC "-//O'Reilly//NONSGML Christopher R. Maden//EN"
"<URL>http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/crism/ <TEL>+1.617.499.7487
<USMAIL>90 Sherman Street, Cambridge, MA 02140 USA" NDATA SGML.Geek>


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list

---