Subject: Fw: W3C-transformation language petition From: "Oren Ben-Kiki" <oren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 15:45:52 +0200 |
Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >The FOs are formatting not styling, so XSL has transformation and >formatting. Right on. >I continue to maintian that styling *is* transformation and formatting, and >that the two parts are therefore requesite for a styling language >... >You seem to be using the likes of CSS as the yardstick for what a style >language is. I'd suggest that such is a poor measurment as IMHO CSS is >*not* a style language but a formatting language. Is it really benefitial to argue about what the meaning of the word "styling" is this week? We'd end up quoting from the Oxford English dictionary, and what good would that do? Instead, we should worry about the right way to structure XML application with graphical display. Should we use the XSL/FO approach or the CSS approach (possibly enhanced by "XTL")? The W3C hasn't decided, otherwise it wouldn't be promoting both XSL and CSS. It seems as though the W3C has decided instead to let both approaches compete in the marketplace, and presumably in a year or two it would become clear which one wins. At which point the W3C will update its standards to reflect the situation. It isn't as if this hasn't happened before. I'm not sure how I feel about that. On the one hand, we might get a better standard in a few years. On the other hand, we face an increased risk that systems implemented today might have to be reworked if they bet on the wrong aproach. What I'd _really_ like is for the W3C to make some sort of an official reference to this issue and clear up what their position is. So far, we are forced to second guess their moves - and given they are promoting both approaches at once, this doesn't work too well. >I further believe that if we weaken the unified nature of XSL as a styling >language we let Microsoft and Netscape off the hook, and all we are ever >likely to see is XML and CSS for formatting. It is just to be expected - the W3C is letting the commercial companies to make its decisions for it, so they do. What makes it ironic is that the same companies have a lot of say within the W3C. It would seem simpler for them to simply sway the W3C to their point of view. Go figure. I'm sure there is an reasonable explanation at some level :-) >For the CSS advocate this might be an attractive prospect, and they need >not knock the aspirations of the XSL advocate as they already have XML/CSS. >For those however, that are hoping that we might one day see the Web used >as a rich media delivery and navigation mechanism, irrespective of voice, >print or screen utilisation, CSS cannot be seen to be up to the job for XML >styling. We must therefore push for actualisation of a complete XSL >solution for XML styling. I have still not seen any technical reasons as to why the CSS approach is inferior to the XSL one. It is obvious that any functionality possible with FOs is also possible using attached "style" attributes to arbitrary XML elements. The only problem is that CSS does not provide the full set of attributes necessary. So, in case the above scenario does materialize, these attributs would have to be added. CSS isn't _necessarily_ the disaster the current implementations make it to be. And, of course, the syntax of CSS should be replaced by an XML compliant one :-) Have fun, Oren Ben-Kiki XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: W3C-transformation language pet, Paul Prescod | Thread | Re: Fw: W3C-transformation language, Guy_Murphy |
RE: no xmlns attribute in the xsl d, Livingstone, Stephen | Date | Re: XSL Examples available, John E. Simpson |
Month |