Subject: RE: XSL formatting model From: Richard Lander <relander@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 11:35:26 -0400 |
Lee, You are not alone with your confusion about XSL abandoning HTML/CSS. Many people have asked similar questions to this list. The problem is that HTML has little function outside of the Web. Until CSS, it wasn't even very good at being a Web medium. For example, Web developers have had to rely on tables, often nested, to attain desired layouts of text and graphics. Ouch. I cringed when I first read the XSL proposal. HTML flow objects? That proposal is certainly easy to learn for the HTML-aware, but roots XML to HTML. If HTML is to be the output format for XML, I would deem the XML effort wasted. The beauty of XML is that it steers the Web away from HTML, back to SGML. Real documentation is never written in HTML, restricitng its presence on the Web. SGML and XML can be converted to HTML, but lose so much in the process. HTML may be easy, but it doesn't do anything. I have enjoyed playing with MSXSL. It certainly gives us a first taste of formatted XML. There are vast warehouses of SGML, needing only minor modifications, that are waiting for the day that they can be seen through Navigator or IE without being converted first to HTML. Richard. Richard Lander Richard.Lander@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.microstar.com Microstar Software relander@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/u/relander/XML/index.html University of Waterloo English - Rhetoric and Professional Writing -----Original Message----- From: Lee Fife [SMTP:lee.fife@xxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 5:51 PM To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: XSL formatting model I'm trying to understand what appears to be the WG's current intention to create a new formatting model, based on flow objects, for web output that is not equivalent to HTML 4 + CSS 2. Naively, this seems to be bad idea. Doesn't build off existing practice and implementations, goes against the market direction, complicates XSL and possibly reduces its acceptance. But, the folks on the WG are bright and experienced. I'm sure they're not heading in this direction w/o thought. So, explanation please? What's the rationale for abandoning the proven and deployed formatting model represented by HTML/CSS and attempting to develop a new model? (The only explanation I've seen offered so far is that the original XSL note described generating really ugly HTML that wouldn't behave well in various display environments. The obvious fix here is to generate better HTML, not to abandon the currently proven web display model.) -Lee 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: XSL formatting model, Frank Boumphrey | Thread | RE: XML Transformation Language (wa, Rob McDougall |
Re: XML Transformation Language (wa, Paul Prescod | Date | Re: XSL formatting model, Chris Lilley |
Month |