Microsoft is one of those that implements XSL as (just!) a transformation
language, with the apparent idea that the formatting objects in HTML are
quite adequate for the time being. "For the time being", I agree with this
approach also, and would like to see the specs track to that, renaming XSL
into something more descriptive of its current transformation function.
I am waiting to see what CSS3 is to offer, expecting stylesheets to apply
to XML elements in addition to HTML elements, so that when fully
implemented (particularly all the "display" types) then we can dispense
with the HTML transformation altogether. In the meantime, we'll continue
with the messy business of converting edited HTML (back) into XML when it
is to be pushed to a server.
FYI, ISO's DSSSL spec splits manipulation apart from formatting objects,
and Scheme stood apart already. IMHO, XSL as it stands is really a dumbed
down Scheme for the unwashed non-IEEE masses, and that's OK, it's just that
the DSSSL purists out there (for whom I have nothing but the greatest
respect) I sense are feeling a bit betrayed by the process they're in with
the W3C and its primary members, and are trying to force the issues with
this poll.
Anyway, my vote is actually to simply second James Clark's view of the
matter, whatever that may be, since he has to-date been right on target.
The entire community owes James and his compatriots great gratitude for
sticking in there, getting the crucial elements of DSSSL through to the W3C
knuckleheads.
I posted Paul's request to our group, to catch the eye of anyone interested
in the topic, such as yourself!
Regards,
John
On Sunday, February 28, 1999 11:34 PM, Gabe Wachob
[SMTP:gwachob@xxxxxxxxxxx] wrote:
> ------------------------------------
> leg-xml-l
> ------------------------------------
> There has been a heated thread on both the XML-DEV and XSL lists about
> splitting the "transformation" from the "formatting objects" in the
current
> XSL specification. Right now, almost all XSL engines do only the
> transformation and don't bother with the formatting vocabulary. Very few
> people have any need for the "formatting objects" since they are not
really
> implemented in many visualizers now.
>
> The point is that most everyone right now only uses the first part of the
> spec and a lot of folks are calling for the spec to be split in two so as
to
> avoid confusion (I happen to agree) -- the counterargument is that the
> XSL spec is set and the formatting vocabulary is built closely onto the
> "transformation" part of the XSL spec, and most importantly, gluing the
> formatting vocabulary onto the spec would encourage standards compliance
for
> those companies wishing to put out "XSL-compliant" products. I don't buy
that
> argument.
>
> If you didn't follow this, don't worry -- it doesn't have an immediate
impact
> on what we are doing...
>
> -Gabe
>
> ------------------------------------
> leg-xml-l
> ------------------------------------
Regards,
John McClure, Principal
Hypergrove@xxxxxxxxxxx
(360) 379-3838
DSSSList info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist