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

Re: Venting

---

---

Thanks God, at last I can get my "me too" in here.

By defining both aspects in the one spec, with the one WG we can ensure
that both will be consistent and work well together. If the FOs confuse you
in relation to the transformative part of the language... don't look at
them. Simple, pretend they're not there.

The side benefit of both parts being in the same spec is it adds a certain
degree of prasure to the browser manufacturers to impliment the FOs in
order to declare themselves fully XSL compliant rather than just sitting
back with HTML/CSS formatting, and discourages them simply producing their
own propreietry formatting solution. Otherwise there is a very real danger
of ending up with unity at XSL transformation but the same old mess with
formatting.

To my mind with regard to browsers (and yes there is print etc., just
addressing my sphere of interest, printers can express their own :), XSL is
an attempt at a one stop solution for getting from A to B... from XML to
rendered output, rather than a the whole raft of solutions currently
available.

For those finding things confusing at present please remember that the
whole thing is in flux at the moment, it is bound to be confusing. If the
whole process is successful then life should be *far* easier. I know at the
moment, explaining Web design to somebody... this is HTML 4, this is the MS
flavour, this is the NS, flavour, we have CSS, with this bit implimented
here, that bit there, this DOM, in this browser, that DOM in the other.....

Give me XML/DOM, XSL, and ECMAScript... and apply the screws until MS/NS
(and anybody else still alive) impliment them to Rec.... simple.

Cheers
     Guy






xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 02/04/99 07:11:57 PM

To:   xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc:    (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID)
Subject:  Re: Venting




Paul Prescod wrote:
[SNIP]
> I know we've been over this before and it is probably not useful to start
> a long thread of "me toos" and "I agrees"  but this is a fundamental flaw
> in the two languages that we know as XSL.
This seems to be rather overstating things to me.  The fact that the two
languages are defined in one spec doesn't affect the languages
themselves one iota.  The specifications of the two languages are
cleanly separated: the transformation language is in section 2 and the
formatting DTD is in section 3. Whether or not you make separate
physical documents out of the two sections doesn't seem a big deal to
me.
James

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






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

---