Subject: RE: Venting From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 13:02:15 -0500 |
Hi Guy, <YourComment> We have vendors on the list comming forward saying that because they only impliment the transformation they can't declare 100% XSL compliance (an impossibility at this stage anyway), so please hack off the formatting. I must be missing something here, as I respect the intelligence of the people gathered on this list.... but I can't see why. The purpose of XSL isn't to produce a generic transformative language, but a styling language. If good transformation is a side-effect all the better. </YourComment> <Reply> I guess you are right on several points. a) yes some vendors want to say to their customer that their stuff is 100% XSL compatible and show that the proprietary stuff era is finished. But, as always, history will repeat itself. b) you said that W3 already showed in its history an incredible resilience to change. I guess you are right on that to. c) DSSSL experience showed that even if part of a spec is implemented in current products, people are using it and, after a while, associated DSSSL with what's really there and not what's on the paper anyway. So, even, if XSL implementations are incomplete, people will use what's available because it is useful and I should say a great part of it is well thought. After a while XSL will be more associated to what is provided in the real world than on paper. d) Paul proposed a manifesto to express formally the view of those who think XSL should be split in two anf the reason why is should be so, I offered help, no answer from anybody, including Paul except that he has to take care of his nighty :-) (Sorry Paul, I couldn't resist). Its clear what I should deduct from that and go back to conformity (OK maybe a blue tee shirt instead of a blue suit :-) e) Some manufacturers will add useful features to the language and people will use it. Some will again cry foul against proprietary stuff. But in reality, manufacturers had to do that to respond to customer needs and again a spec has to be adapted to reality. This is good in fact, at least, we can still innovate a bit and not be constrained like in the middles ages where only one voice where permitted. F) we showed that this group don't suffer from groupthink :-) g) the collision of idea created some interesting concepts, I noted them and probably other people will need that in real implementations even if it is not 100% pure because at least it is useful. h) Finally the real power is in the hands of the developers and the users. So XSL will be what developers will implement and what users will ask for. I guess the rest is not so important after all. Only action talk on the long term. Let's go back to work now and provide real stuff to this world. </Reply> <Question> Did someone tried the experiment to generate Tex FOs with XSL "tranformation"? To be more particular LaTex FOs? </Question> <Citation> A paper may influence action but it is action that build the world </citation> Regards Didier PH Martin mailto:martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.netfolder.com XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Venting, Guy_Murphy | Thread | Re: Venting, uche . ogbuji |
Re: Venting, Guy_Murphy | Date | Re: Venting, Marcus Groeber |
Month |