Subject: Re: XML + (XSL | CSS) ? From: "Lisa Pease" <lisap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 07:51:03 -0700 |
I would also stress, coming from the standpoint of instruction, that it is simpler to teach people XSL when the HTML flow objects are available. It gives them a point of reference, and encourages them to use the technology sooner. If the HTML flow objects are dropped, I imagine that far smaller numbers of people will be encouraged to learn what would then be a wholly unfamiliar technology, and then we will not reap the full benefits of XML. -----Original Message----- From: Frank Boumphrey <bckman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Johnathan Marsh <jmarsh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thursday, May 21, 1998 8:28 PM Subject: Re: XML + (XSL | CSS) ? >I believe one of the reasons for the interest in XSL is the MSXSL parser. It >is very difficult to get interested in a hypothetical subject, but the >parser has allowed us to construct viewable pages from XML. I have just >finished using it to translate Jon Bosaks Shakespeare plays marked up in XML >to HTML. > >There are other conversion tools out there, but they come without clear >instructions and are difficult for the average intelligent user to use. On >the other hand it takes most of my students only about 5 mins to get the >hang of MSXSL. (No I don't even own microsoft stock!!) > >I only hope that if the XSL WR is changed, as I have heard it rumored, to >exclude HTML flow objects, that MS will rapidly come out with a parser to >interpret the new set of flow objects!! > >Remember you can't tech a course of carpentry from a text book, and you >can't teach computer skills without adequet tools, and MSXSL for all its >limitations was/is an excellent teaching and learning tool. > >Frank > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >To: 'xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx' <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Date: Tuesday, May 19, 1998 4:43 PM >Subject: RE: XML + (XSL | CSS) ? > > >>Much as I hate to point out its flaws, remember that the Microsoft XSL >>Processor is a "technology preview", fit for prototyping and possible >>deployment on a limited scale, but we don't consider it to be robust >enough, >>performant enough, or flexible enough for mission-critical applications. >It >>has provided us valuable feedback on both the XSL language and the systems >>which have a need for a technology like XSL. Thank you for your >enthusiasm, >>I have been getting similar responses from many who have experimented with >>XSL. This makes me hopeful that a solid and flexible implementation would >>be welcomed by the web community. >> >>The goal in my opinion is to define a minimal XSL 1.0 to enable rapid >>adoption of XSL. Keeping it simple and tightly tied in with other W3C >>standards, including CSS, will help ensure that implementations can keep up >>and be deployed widely. Biting off too much at this point would be self >>defeating. I would hope that XSL could complement CSS rather than being an >>either/or choice. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Lisa Pease [mailto:lisap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Friday, May 15, 1998 3:46 PM >> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: XML + (XSL | CSS) ? >> >> Intranet users who have standardized on IE4 (and we do >>business with several >> large companies for whom this is the case) can use XSL now, >>and nothing CSS >> has can meet those needs, yet. >> >> I'm as eager as the next person to see widespread and rapid >>implementation >> of W3C Recs. Experience has taught me this is never as fast >>a process as I >> would like, and so I'm not averse to using whatever best >>suits my needs that >> is available now. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Paul Prescod <papresco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Friday, May 15, 1998 2:17 PM >> Subject: Re: XML + (XSL | CSS) ? >> >> >> >Lisa Pease wrote: >> >> >> >> I can do things today in XSL that I can't yet do in CSS, >>despite full >> >> Recommendation status of both CSS1 and 2. >> > >> >Sort of. Hardly anyone is going to put anything on the Web >>that depends on >> >an Active-X control, so you can't really render XSL >>directly in any >> >browsers. What you can do is convert XML documents to HTML, >>but you could >> >always do that with Python, Jade, Java, Perl, etc. XSL's >>real value will >> >be as a ubiquitous standard that you can depend upon. Right >>now it's just >> >another batch processor in a crowded field. >> > >> >> >> >> XSL-List info and archive: >>http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list >> >> >> XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list >> > > > XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list > XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: XML + (XSL | CSS) ?, Michael Kay | Thread | Re: XML + (XSL | CSS) ?, Paul Prescod |
removing HTML flow objects?, David Megginson | Date | Re: removing HTML flow objects?, Frank Boumphrey |
Month |