RE: syntax feedback

Subject: RE: syntax feedback
From: "Reynolds, Gregg" <greynolds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 14:43:54 -0600
Not a valid assumption.  There has been no change in the XSL charter
that I know of.  Speaking only for myself, I would point out that
designing a language that does what DSSSL does, and what CSS does, and
works for browsers, and for print, and supports "all" languages, and
works audio output, and etc., is considerably more difficult than
designing a tree tranformation language.  One need only observe that the
problem domain for a tranformation language is quite well defined, with
a (relatively) long history of scholarly papers and research to draw on.
The problem domain for a style language is a different animal
altogether.  There is no theory of style - or rather, there are
hundreds; but there is no generally accepted vocabulary and formal body
of theory.  Everybody knows how to read, but how many people can
articulate what makes one page beautiful (or just easy on the eyes) and
another repellent?  It's hard to even talk about typesetting,
composition, style, etc., - just look at the wonderful variety of
terminologies we have to choose from.  This is especially true when you
move to "exotic" languages, where one's usual aesthetic and semantic
categories no longer work.

I guess the moral of the story is that you should not despair just
because the XSL style language didn't spring fully-formed from the
forehead the the XSL-WG.

- Gregg Reynolds
  speaking only for hisself.

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Dent [mailto:dent@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 6:17 AM
To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: syntax feedback

...

XSL seems so weak in its support for printing at present I assume that
this
goal had been implicitly dropped.


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


Current Thread