RE: About XML to multiple language/multiple outputs

Subject: RE: About XML to multiple language/multiple outputs
From: "Frank A. Christoph" <christo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 21:23:23 +0900
Didier Remy wrote:
> Why are you pursuing this path? what is the goal? In one hand you
> apologize and on the other you jump into it again :-))

I was trying to explain why your posts gave me an uneasy feeling about the
direction that DSSSL-2 is taking. I apologize for the tone of the message,
not the content. Why should I? It wasn't even antagonistic.

> I never said I wont be content until new features set are  included. I
said,
> that the first step to the process is to collect needs and more
particularly
> unfulfilled needs. If new things are added it is to fulfill these
> unsatisfied needs. Also, the other kind of needs, are need fulfilled but
> with high cost. I mean here, if people would get a simpler way to do what
> they want to do, it would take less time (time to learn, time to do,
> etc...).

It also lengthens the standard which, as someone has in fact recently
remarked, is already sizeable, intimidating and largely underutilized.

For example, how much of the standard do you think is presently used by even
a skilled DSSSL user? There are four major parts to the standard: the
expression language, the grove description, the transformation language and
the style language. In practice, nobody uses the transformation language.
Probably only 40-50 percent (at most) of the style language is used by even
a very advanced user, partly because much of it is unimplemented. The entire
expression language is used, but with a few mostly inessential changes
(e.g., units, languages and keywords), the standard could have just
referenced the Scheme R^XRS instead and excised that entire section. (That
would add side effects, though, which might be problematic.) Finally, hardly
anyone ever has cause or opportunity to use anything in the grove section
besides the element and attribute value classes.

> Didier Remy wrote on Thu, 15 Jul 1999:
> I agree, but we have to prepare DSSSL-2, do not forget it. And we have
also
> to improve OpenJade and if possible provide powerful new features that
could
> help the community.
...
> So, let's imagine for a moment that we no longer look behind but in front
of
> us and that in front of us there is a new spec to write. let's call it
> DSSSL-2.
> ...
> Didier says:
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Taking fragments out of context is a sure way to manipulate the
> information
> :-) What are your motives?

I omitted the context merely because it didn't seem relevant. It certainly
doesn't alter the meaning of the block I quoted. Here, have a look:
http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist/archivetmp/msg04747.html

Maybe you would care to explain how I have perverted your intent?

> Sorry I am not perfect. I am glad to have colleagues that can points me to
> errors I do, like I'll point to errors my colleagues do (but always with a
> collaborative attitude and respect for my colleagues), take into account
> that the amount of knowledge required to cover the entire field is quite
> big. This is hard for a single individual to be perfect in all  the
fields. I
> got at least the intellectual honesty to recognize when I do a mistake and
a
> certain courage to open the process to the group for comments.

I tried to consider very carefully whether I should dredge up the discussion
on the query-rule construct. Maybe I shouldn't have, and let bygones be
bygones, but it sticks in my craw because I think it is the first instance
of DSSSL-2 appearing on the list, and it has colored my perception of the
remainder of the discussion. I really don't know how to say it in a nice
way, I'm sorry: you were very stubborn about it. Several people including me
corrected you and made it clear that there was no room for interpretation,
but your own interpretations just kept on multiplying. Eventually those
interpretations mutated into hints of proposals for DSSSL-2. So please do
not question _my_ intellectual honesty.

> I  doubt that
> this kind of flaming is doing something constructive (except annoying
people
> of this list and me in particular). We already lost half of this message
> without any constructive comment about DSSSL-2 or OpenJade.

Yes, considering that you preface any pertinent response to my posts with
some parenthetical questioning of my motives apparently meant to trivialize
my concerns, you are certainly not being very constructive.

> Now to go back to useful things. The query construct has to be kept "as
is"
> in the next spec simply for backward compatibility. So, there is no
> intentions to remove it. However, there is also an opportunity to improve
it
> and particularly the query-expression part. There is possibilities to make
> it more simple. Ken Holman made an interesting suggestion with a
> query-expression able to reach any grove element without procedural
> construct but something more like a name space access path. This is
> something that need to be studied, commented, documented. (Note: I do not
> say here that this has to be like XPath)

If the query-rule construct can be simplified so as to make it universal,
i.e., so that all the other rules can be expressed in terms of it, then I'm
all in favor of it.

> Some people worry that DSSSL is too complex and some of these people are
now
> using XSL. Also, if you participate to the XSL list, you'll  notice that
once
> in a while there are also people saying that XSL is too complex. There is
> always people to say that it is too complex.

Yes, and I am among those people. Is that OK or would you like to question
my motives again?

> What is interesting is to
> listen to people saying that a particular concept is too hard to learn (we
> can improve it by bringing it to more simplicity). That a particular
> construct is too complex to write (we can then simplify this
> construct). As
> long as we can know what exactly is complex or is not very "usable" we can
> try at least to fix it. This is called evolution.

I have absolutely no complaints against simplifying the standard. Let's
simplify it.

> Frank said:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> For example, bringing the display model into a closer alignment with that
of
> CSS and XSL is a good thing, but can it be done in a strictly backwards
> compatible way? And, if doing so requires DSSSL to subsume the entire XSL
> standard, including the "template" syntax (which you suggested),
> then is it really worth the effort?
>
> Didier said:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Nobody said we would subsume the entire XSL. You just said that,
> nobody else did. Is flaming always your style of discussion? (simply
curious).

No, Didier, actually you said it. Let me refresh your memory:

Didier wrote on 99/08/15 in "About DSSSL 2 Specifications":
> If a particular implementation would support XPAth based query-expression
> and if all element are declared as omit tags, then a DSSSL template could
be
> identical to a XSLT template like below
> ...
> For complete integration with the XML world we would also need to support
> name space basd notations like: dsssl:select-node instead of
> dsssl-select-node.
>
> In this case (and still with more work to do) we could say that XSL could
be
> a subset of DSSSL.


> Yes I agree, we have to work to improve the visual objects but not
> necessarily to make them compatible with CSS objects. To do so, we have to
> add new characteristics to already existing visual object to make
> them able to fultil the requirements of on-line rendition
> (bakground-color,background-image, border etc...).

Fine.

> The page and page model
> flow objects are still missing. We need help in the OpenJade project, so a
> positive and constructive effort would be to help us build them.
> What about this proposition Frank?

A kind invitation. Unfortunately I must decline as I have other priorities
for my spare time.

> Didier says:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Frank, I have noticed the pattern that each paragraph contains personal
> attack? This is wasted efforts. What about putting all this energy into
> implementing the page and page model flow objects instead? The OpenJade
> project needs help and you would have the occasion to help your
> other DSSSL fellows.

That's funny, because to me it seems that you are the one who is
demonstrating an antagonistic pattern. Let me see if I can count the ways...
You (repeatedly) question my motives. You question my intellectual honesty.
You accuse me of taking your remarks out of context. You accuse me of
putting words in your mouth. You call me a flamer. And you call me an ass.
[Lest other readers doubt me on this count, he wrote: "OK, I could ask you
to spell the word assume but I will simply answer." This is an allusion to
an old Benny Hill joke: "Do not ASSUME, because when you ASSUME, you make an
ASS out of U and ME." I guess Didier thought this would be a clever way to
insult me behind my back.]

I've been sarcastic, yes, but I didn't resort to character defamation.

> No, do not mix things, I just expressed a feeling . Matthias reminded me
not
> to overreact, and I thank him for this. I never got the intention to
revoke
> any privileges. I always expressed the intention to build this draft from
> the people's needs and from the experience and wisdom of the DSSSL
> community. I never said, however, that I am a punching ball :-)))

Most people would take this as a threat: "However comments like [...] Could
make me regret having chosen an open dialog with the DSSSL community."

> Food for thought:
> Its easy to criticize not easy to build.....
> To err is human, to recognize it is courage.
> To build with, is not to fight against, it is to help.

"He wrapped himself in quotations---as a beggar would enfold himself in the
purple of Emperors." (Kipling)

--FC


 DSSSList info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist


Current Thread