[no subject]

From: John McClure <hypergrove@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 16:16:57 -0800
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


Current Thread