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

Re: Stepping back, part two...

---

---

Hi Sebastian.

Your points are well made, especialy the teddy bear analogy <chuckle />.

While I can readily see while my loud shouting could be seen as tantrum
throwing, as somebody who has
to work with HTML daily in large applications, often maked-up from vast
data sets (I work for Dialog a very large content provider)
in ASP... an XML/XSL solution isn't mere "sweeties" but air for a drowning
man.

You might be suprised at the number of Web developers in my position. For
XML to be truly viable for me, it requires
an XSL type solution. You seem unsure about the differences between script
and XSL for large scale XML transformations...
trust me they aren't even on the same planet. Yes producing XML
transformations in script is straight forward. Producing
stable, easily tested, scalable, bug free implimentations inlarge
applications is another matter.

I have tried persuading my boss to buy us a place on W3C, but he's
unconvinced of the cost/benefits (that's how serious that matter is to us
not mere confectionary.

As for 70% of XML being used in machine interchange... yes you're probably
right... but somebody has to engineer that interchange. It doesn't happen
magicaly.

Your points about the danger of XSL being damamged if rushed are well put.
I'm sort of unsure on this one. I understand the very real concern here
but can't see XSL as anything more at the mo than a trivial language that
could be pushed through in a short period. I still can't see the
rocket science. I am however more concerned with the two tiers of Web
browsers available at the moment, and painfuly aware that the v5 browsers
are just around the corner. It looks to me that we are once again heading
for two different implimentations of XML rendering.

One of the main reasons that I see for the Web being "broke" is that
standards take such a rediculously long time to ratify. You can level a
certain amount of blame at the feet of MS and NS, but if standards are
crawling at a fraction of the speed of technology, the browser companies
*will* jump ahead. NS hasn't suddenly aquired a sainthood the only reason
they've started towing the standard line is because pre-empting HTML4 and
CSS-p nearly bust their company.

On the other side of things, if standards jump too far ahead as in HTML 3.0
requiring a more sensible HTML 3.2 to follow, then they simply don't get
implimented. Somehow we need to accurately predict where the companies are
going to be over the next 12 months, and produce a solution for that.

Cheers
     Guy.






xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 11/30/98 11:28:12 PM

To:   xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc:    (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID)
Subject:  Re: Stepping back, part two...




Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
 > In answer to your last question, I think that XML is primarily for the
Web,
hmm. as i understand XML, it was born from conversations between Jon
Bosak and Tim Bray about the need for a simpler SGML for dynamic
parsing in *such things as* Web browsers. and then they snuck it
through the W3C, at which point the W3C woke up and realized it had a
winner, hence claiming undeserved back brownie points. Lets not
pretend it was a W3C initiative, please.
and now, of course, XML has escaped to the whole world. do not 7
industry analysts out of 10 who eat breakfast cereal agree that
more XML will be seen only by machines than humans? ie as a process
interchange format?
hence I don't buy the Web hugging XML to its chest like a child with a
new teddy bear
 > So rather than push out an XSL 1.0, and worry about what we can add in
XSL
 > 1.5 or 2.0, I suggest the W3C gets bogged down in how
 > XSL can best syntactically represent phonemes and intonation... yes I am
thats not the job of XSL, thats the job of the FO renderer. the access
people will surely thank you more for an abstract FO tree than a set
of low level HTML tags
 > being facetious... but that might be because my company wants to move to
 > XML now, and as the implimentor I really don't want to have to develop
 > complex applications parsing the XML DOM :)
I don't know why they would be more complex than the corresponding XSL
style sheet. i'd say they'd be rather similar
 > So if I appear a little impassioned in some of my posts it's because I
feel
 > impassioned by XSL... I want XSL... And I want to now, not next August.
see the analogy of the child with the teddy. what is so urgent? be
calm. take a holiday.
 > possibility of an ensuing battle over differing XSL interests. I don't
 > however feel that XSL will succeed as a language if it seeks to cater to
 > all interests.
and i don't feel that XSL has a snowball's chance in hell if its rushed
out prematurely under buffetting from "i want sweeties and i want them
NOW or I'll sick". but then what hope does XSL have anyway, being
developed in the public glare like this? the original XML group must
be thanking their lucky stars they were able to proceed in relative peace
 > So my ghettoised viewpoint is
 > XML/XSL/Web/Screen/v1.0/March99 ...we can worry about adding the gloss
as i understand the weird and wonderful entity that is W3C, your
correct course of action is to join the W3C and badger your way onto
the XSL group and shout loudly there. it'll probably work :-}
sebastian "walk dont run" rahtz

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






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

---