Subject: Re: XSL Requirements (was: Microsoft extensions to XSL) From: "Oren Ben-Kiki" <oren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 11:31:38 +0200 |
Chris <chris@xxxxxx> wrote: >Oren Ben-Kiki wrote: > >> As Didier PH Martin (mailto:martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) correctly pointed out, a >> pattern matching language is never sufficient by itself to do general >> structural transformations. > >Right. But then, XSL is not intended as a general structural >transformation language. Its a style language that includes the ability >to do some transformation as part of the styling step. The situation as I see it is as follows (please correct me if this is wrong): - CSS and XSL (as originally intended) are meant to allow separating content from formatting in documents viewed in the browser. - CSS (as it stands today) is based on the assumption that we begin with an HTML document, which needs to be "annotated" with formatting information. Structural transformations are minor if exiting at all. - XSL (as it stands today) is based on the assumption that we begin with an XML document, which needs to be transformed into HTML _and_ have formatting information attached to it. Structural transformations are therefore major. There is an assumption that the XML structure is not "too far" from the resulting HTML structure, so the transformational capabilities are not "complete". - In practice, (current) browsers support CSS and not XSL. (Some) XSL support is expected in the next generation of browsers, though. - There is a real need for a standard mechanism for transforming XML into HTML (and other languages). The W3 organization (currently) has no proposed solution to address this need. - XSL, being "the nearest thing" to a solution, is used to fill the gap. This has caused people to push for XSL being a more "complete" transformational language, regardless of the original intent. There are several competing solutions, some based on CSS. So much for the facts. I hope I got them right. Now for some opinions: - CSS is more popular then XSL since it is seen as an evolutionary step which fits in the HTML framework, while XSL is seen as a revolutionary step (switching to XML as an input language). While this public image may not be 100% correct, it has enough influence that I wouldn't bet on XSL making it as a stylesheet language. - The XSL draft is being pushed in two directions and faces the danger of becoming an unsatisfactory stylesheet language _and_ an unsatisfactory transformation language. The first part would result from implementations which view XSL as a transformational language (as most do today), and the second part would result from designing XSL as a stylesheel language (as is the current intent). - While there are competing transformational solutions, all (that I am aware of) are "corrupted" by being overly concerned with formatting issues. The "right" solution is to have defined formatting languages (for example: HTML + CSS, a mathematical formulas formatting language, a 2D/3D graphics formatting language, etc.). In addition we need to define transformation language(s), which convert an input language (XML or HTML) to an arbitrary (combination) of formatting language(s). - Just like we have more then one formatting language, we may end up with competing transformation languages. This is no excuse to tie particular transformation languages with particular formatting languages (as is being done today). - If we'd insist that languages should be for "formatting" XOR "transformation", then CSS should be moved to the "formatting" part, and developement of transformation abilities within it kept to a minimum. XSL should be broken into two parts (XTL and XFL). I don't see much future for XFL if it is separated from XTL - which is a good indication of why this procedure is necessary. Spice might be disentangled from CSS and become a viable transformation language. There's also STTS... And the most important point: - The W3 organization should address this issue. What needs to be done to get the attention of the W3 organization? I'm thinking of conducting an informal survey (what would be the proper forum) on this issue; if the results are favorable, that would probably get their attention. Is that acceptable to the list maintainers? Share & Enjoy, Oren Ben-Kiki XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: XSL Requirements (was: Microsof, James Tauber | Thread | More fun with MSIE, Chris Maden |
Recursively applying XSL stylesheet, Kent Fitch | Date | RE: XSL Requirements (was: Microsof, Guy_Murphy |
Month |