RE: XML Transformation Language (was Re: removing HTML flow obje cts?)

Subject: RE: XML Transformation Language (was Re: removing HTML flow obje cts?)
From: Rob McDougall <RMcDouga@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 18:22:14 -0400
Let's say I have a database product and I wish to import any XML
document.  Now being considerate of my customer's needs, I want to
leverage some industry standard if I can.  I notice that XSL allows
someone to specify a series of patterns/rules to route the content into
"flow objects".  This sounds like just the ticket.  I can define a few
DB related "flow objects" e.g. table, row, column.  I would then ask the
user to codify a set of rules using the XSL patterns to route their
content into my flow objects.  Voila! I have an import mechanism, and my
user has a transportable skill.  Everyone's happy.

I see the patterns/rules structure of XSL/DSSSL as being fundamental to
any application that intends to receive generic XML.  Sure they can
re-invent the wheel if they want, but I wouldn't recommend it.  Of
course, they might _have to_ if the XSL pattern/rule capabilities are
inadequate.  IMHO, this would be the worst of all possible cases.  If
XSL's transformation capabilities aren't robust, then we could get a
thousand different (incompatible) variations on the XSL syntax.  I'd
like to see vendors differentiate their products by offering more "flow
objects" with more characteristics, rather that re-inventing another
patterns/rules syntax.

I'd like to see W3C step in and separate the transformation syntax
effort from the XSL flow object effort so that the transformation syntax
is built from the ground up to be a general facility.  Without having
examined the current XSL WG draft that is due out in July, I worry that
style specifics may creep in to the transformation facility, or that
they may miss some important generic feature because of the focus on
style.

Rob

-----Original Message-----
From: G. Ken Holman [mailto:gkholman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 5:23 PM
To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: XML Transformation Language (was Re: removing HTML flow
objects?)


[Snip]

How would you characterize (perhaps by example) such a "feature of a
generic XML processor"?  Need XML processors necessarily have common
features?  Wouldn't different XML processor vendors wish to compete with
product differentiation of features?

........ Ken

--
G. Ken Holman            mailto:gkholman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Crane Softwrights Ltd.  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com
Box 266,                             V: +1(613)489-0999
Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0         F: +1(613)489-0995
PGP Privacy: http://www.cyberus.ca/~holman/gkholman.pgp
Training:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/schedule.htm
Shareware:   http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/shareware/


 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