Re: Stepping back, for a moment...

[David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx>]

> The DSSSL standard defines a pretty good base set of
> objects, and would serve as a good basis for a generic set.  This is
> where I see a solution to the formatter-to-transformer feedback
> problem.

Yes. Although I raised the issue of feedback (and I think this is always
going to be a problem with the dsssl/xsl view of the world) I can't see
any sane way to add any such feature at the present time, and so
encapsulating `enough' such decision processes into formatting objects
is no doubt the way to go. It may be possible (later) to have some
standard way of defining new formatting objects via some supported
interface to a scripting language, which would offer a `gradual' way to
extend the system.


> So, to wrap up this somewhat incoherent rambling, I think some
> larger scale analysis of what we're really out to do may be in order

which was all I really hoped to provoke with my messages, rather than
taking a vote at this stage. Especially since the constituency of such a
vote; namely the random collection of people signed up to this list
is probably not representitive of anything.

David


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list