Subject: An other example of a domain language and implication to XSL From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 11:12:26 -0500 |
HI, Actually, ISO is working on a spec called "Topic maps" I can say that this is well done and fulfill a certain need. At the same time W3C is working on something similar named RDF and this too is well done and fulfill a certain need. Now the problem statement: Let's say that we have a XML compliant document and a SGML document without omitag and that can fit in the "well formed" qualifier (and therefore could be considered a xml document without the xml PI). One of these document contains ISO 13250 "topic maps" and the other one W3C RDF. On one side I have a ISO 13250 compliant browser and on the other side a RDF compliant browser. Without a transformation language, the two files could be interpreted only on _one_ browser. Now, if I have a XSL script that can transform RDF into ISO 13250 format and vise versa, files could be interpreted on both browsers. Funny thing about this: both files are standard compliant but based on two different standard organism. See, even with standard organism we need inter-operability (and this time the cause is not the evil empire :-). XSL can fulfill a need to transform documents so that the documents could be interpreted by diverse _standard_ _compliant_ tools_. Domain language diversity wont solely be created by manufacturers but also by standard institutions. A transformation language is a tool given to users to gain inter-operability. Hope this will help broaden the horizons. 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 -> |
---|---|---|
Matching on Commas and Full Stops, Nigel Byrnes | Thread | RE: ?<xsl:apply-templates select="t, David Schach |
RE: Venting, Didier PH Martin | Date | Re: SGML output from XSL?, Lars Marius Garshol |
Month |