[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
RE: Venting
Subject: RE: Venting From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 19:01:43 -0500 |
Hi Chris, <YourComment> This is an interesting assertion. The work on XSL was started by Jon Bosak, who put a lot of effort into DSSSL and led the informal DSSSL-o profile group. All three of DSSSL's editors (Sharon Adler, Anders Berglund, and James Clark) sit on the XSL WG; one co-chairs it, and another edits half of the XSL spec. How this disrespects, rather than learns from, DSSSL eludes me. </YourComent> <Reply> You are right these persons where part of DSSSL specs and learned a lot about it. This is why we got the transformation part that came so fast and indead showed that lessons where learned from DSSSL. The comment about disrecpect is more toward the fact that W3 just created a new language instead of improving the one already there and named DSSSL. This notheless do not mean that XSL is not well done, at least the transformation part. No, in fact, the transformation part is more seamlessly integrated with HTML constructs. Even more and better than dsssl. What is however somewhat harder to understand is a) create a style languaged named CSS and have part of XSL compete against it. Also, as Paul and I already said, only the formatting part of dsssl is a de facto standard because only this part got implemented in real applications. This said, I do not and that is not in my mind that these individual didn't learned nor did they applied their knowledge which toward the goal of creating a style language. So, the point is that W3 as an institution (not necessarily the above mentionned individuals) choosed to create a new language. Thanx, the transformation part is great and resolved some bugs we got in dsssl (just a mention here: a dsssl document is a SGML document SGML let you choose delimiters and this is whay we have ())) because this was choosen to be the tag delimiters and also the fact that such DTD would be scheme compatible - it remains that we could have debugged this and simplify the notation - James did that by introducing the macro concept - better than that merge the two. No, the choice was made to redo. End of the story. This said, many thanx to all the individuals you mentionned (and a special thanx to Jon Bosak and James Clark) for their efforts and knowledge. But it remains that splitting the transformation part of XSL could be a good thing: - economical reasons - The last Microsoft patent annoncement - You guys are defending standards and so on, this is to provide feedom of choice to users (the right to have the freedom to choose your vendor in fact, not the right to get innovation). This is what we want to (the right to choose the vendor) and not get the market or power only in the hands of a few. - there is momentum a least among the early investors (people who created implementations) and early adopters (people who used it and gave feedback to the former) - There won't be any confusion about what is provided to the user. If we retain XTL as a word to describe the transformation part then, at least the end user will know that XTL is something concrete not a part of, yes but....or wait until that big guy have it fully implemented (or maybe never as they whish after all, they have the market, why rush?) - This can reach the market beach at least this year and will indead fulfill Jon's goal to have XML be more real stuff. - I know, being in the position of power and being challenged by the population is not easy. But this movement is based on good grounds. But this side of the fence has an opinion too. A standard is not only owned by the W3 members, now that other people invested efforts in it, it _their_ standard. Is it not what standards are made for? What we ask is just that, that it is a standard owned not solely by a few and that the rewards of such standards is not also solely reserved to a few. so don't get me wrong, I repect these people but also repect people that brought reality to XSL and these people are this list participant (and others collegues we don't know or do not speak often). Period. </Reply> Regards Didier PH Martin mailto:martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.netfolder.com XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Venting, Chris Maden | Thread | Re: Venting, Chris Lilley |
Availability of DSSSL Technology, G. Ken Holman | Date | Re: Venting, David LeBlanc |
Month |