Subject: Re: Venting From: Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 10:38:38 +0000 |
Thanks God, at last I can get my "me too" in here. By defining both aspects in the one spec, with the one WG we can ensure that both will be consistent and work well together. If the FOs confuse you in relation to the transformative part of the language... don't look at them. Simple, pretend they're not there. The side benefit of both parts being in the same spec is it adds a certain degree of prasure to the browser manufacturers to impliment the FOs in order to declare themselves fully XSL compliant rather than just sitting back with HTML/CSS formatting, and discourages them simply producing their own propreietry formatting solution. Otherwise there is a very real danger of ending up with unity at XSL transformation but the same old mess with formatting. To my mind with regard to browsers (and yes there is print etc., just addressing my sphere of interest, printers can express their own :), XSL is an attempt at a one stop solution for getting from A to B... from XML to rendered output, rather than a the whole raft of solutions currently available. For those finding things confusing at present please remember that the whole thing is in flux at the moment, it is bound to be confusing. If the whole process is successful then life should be *far* easier. I know at the moment, explaining Web design to somebody... this is HTML 4, this is the MS flavour, this is the NS, flavour, we have CSS, with this bit implimented here, that bit there, this DOM, in this browser, that DOM in the other..... Give me XML/DOM, XSL, and ECMAScript... and apply the screws until MS/NS (and anybody else still alive) impliment them to Rec.... simple. Cheers Guy xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 02/04/99 07:11:57 PM To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cc: (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID) Subject: Re: Venting Paul Prescod wrote: [SNIP] > I know we've been over this before and it is probably not useful to start > a long thread of "me toos" and "I agrees" but this is a fundamental flaw > in the two languages that we know as XSL. This seems to be rather overstating things to me. The fact that the two languages are defined in one spec doesn't affect the languages themselves one iota. The specifications of the two languages are cleanly separated: the transformation language is in section 2 and the formatting DTD is in section 3. Whether or not you make separate physical documents out of the two sections doesn't seem a big deal to me. James 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: Venting, Rick Ross | Thread | Re: Venting, Guy_Murphy |
Re: Explorer Treeview with XSL, Guy_Murphy | Date | Re: Venting, Guy_Murphy |
Month |