Subject: Re: Venting From: "Oren Ben-Kiki" <oren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 17:20:12 +0200 |
>As part of this effort I have started to collect posts in favor of the >split. We can use the volume of posts to demonstrate the extreme desire of >the community, the content of the posts as cannon fodder and we can >contact all of the authors of the posts so that they can become co-signers >of the manifesto. Here is the start of my list. People can send me other >URLs *OFF LINE* (check your bleeping reply-to header). Check the thread wrt. the survey I conducted on this point a while back. Here's a copy of the results message. Good luck! Oren Ben-Kiki ------------------------------------------------------------ OK, Here are the current results. I haven't received any new votes the last two days, but maybe posting this will generate some more, in which case I'll send an update next week. I received 26 full votes (including mine :-). I don't know whether this is good or bad. Can anyone tell me how many subscribers there are to this mailing list? At any rate, here's a summary of the results: 1. Should the W3 organization address the issue: Y:26, N:2. 2. Separate to transformation and formatting languages: Y:17, N:7, U:2 3. If (2), the transformation language: XSL:14, XML:2, STTS3:1, DSSSL:1, Like Omnimark:1, XQL:1 4. If (2), the formatting language: CSS:12, XSL:4, DSSSL:2 5. If not (2), the combined language: XSL:7 Here's a table of all the votes: 1: Y 2: Y 3: XSL 4: XSL/CSS 5: N/A 1: Y 2: N 3: N/A 4: N/A 5: XSL 6: DSSSL has nice features. 1: N 2: N 3: N/A 4: N/A 5: XSL 6: XSL is a done deal. 1: Y 2: Y 3: XSL 4: CSS 5: N/A 6: XML->HTML applications. 1: Y 2: N 3: N/A 4: N/A 5: XSL 6: Clarify the specs to settle this. 1: Y 2: Y 3: XSL 4: XSL 5: N/A 6: DTD->DTD applications. 1: Y 2: Y 3: XSL 4: CSS 5: N/A 6: Scripting is first priority. 1: Y 2: Y 3: XSL 4: CSS 5: N/A 6: Do it now to get browser support. 1: Y 2: N 3: N/A 4: N/A 5: XSL 6: XSL needs scripting to beat CSS. 1: Y 2: Y 3: XSL 4: CSS 5: N/A 6: Add scripting to XSL. 1: Y 2: Y 3: XSL 4: XSL/CSS 5: N/A 6: Transformation => easy styling. 1: Y 2: Y 3: XSL 4: Any 5: N/A 6: Add scripting to XSL. 1: Y 2: Y 3: XSL 4: XSL+CSS 5: N/A 6: General feedback mechanism? 1: Y 2: Y 3: Like Omnimark+DOM 4: DSSSL lite 5: N/A 6: Keep it simple. 1: Y 2: N 3: N/A 4: N/A 5: XSL 6: XSL is too weak. 1: Y 2: Y 3: XSL 4: CSS 5: N/A 6: 1: Y 2: U 3: XSL 4: CSS 5: ? 6: Strengthen transformations. 1: Y 2: Y 3: XSL 4: CSS 5: N/A 6: 1: Y 2: N 3: N/A 4: N/A 5: XSL 6: 1: Y 2: Y 3: XSL with XQL 4: XSL 5: N/A 6: CSS should use XML syntax. 1: Y 2: Y 3: STTS3/XSL 4: CSS 5: N/A 6: 1: Y 2: Y 3: XML 4: CSS in XML 5: N/A 6: XML syntax, std. query + scripting. 1: Y 2: U 3: ? 4: DSSSL 5: ? 6: 1: Y 2: Y 3: XML 4: CSS 5: N/A 6: 1: N 2: N 3: N/A 4: N/A 5: XSL 6: Two languages within the standard. 1: Y 2: Y 3: XSL/DSSSL 4: CSS 5: N/A 6: 1: Y 1: Y The Original Message was: >From: Oren Ben-Kiki <oren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >To: XSL list <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Date: Thursday, November 19, 1998 15:21 >Subject: XSL intent survey > >As a continuation to the XSL requirements thread, and since I got a >favorable response so far, I think we should go ahead and conduct this >survey. The survey questions are as follows: > >1: I feel that the W3 organization should address the transformation vs. >formatting issue: > yes/no > >2: We need separate transformation and formatting (style sheet) languages: > yes/no/undecided > >If you answered "yes" or "undecided", for question (2), then: > >3: The transformation language should be (based on): > XSL/CSS/JavaScript/Perl/Other:... > >Note: XSL here stands for the transformation part of the current draft; CSS >refers to proposals to extend CSS to do transformations, with a removal of >the formatting specific features. > >4: The formatting language should be (based on): > XSL/CSS/Other:... > >Note: XSL here stands for the formatting part of the current draft; CSS >refers to the current state of affairs. > >If you answered "no", for question (2), then: > >5: The combined language should be based on: > XSL/CSS/Other:... > >Note: XSL refers to XSL as it stands today; CSS refers to proposals to >extend CSS to include transformations. > >Finally: > >6: Any further comments: >... > >Notes: > >To vote, just forward this message to xsl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx and replace the line >following each question (currently listing alternatives) with your answer. > >Names and addresses of voters would be kept on my host just to prevent >double votes and allow updates - a second vote would override the previous >one. I don't think posting the names and addresses would serve any purpose >other then giving spammers a convenient list :-) > >I'll post intermediate results in a week and final results in two weeks. I'd >appreciate a reference to the "right" address in the W3 organization to >forward the final results to. 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, Didier PH Martin | Thread | Re: Venting, Guy_Murphy |
RE:venting, Sebastian Rahtz | Date | Re: XML to PDF problems..........., James Tauber |
Month |