Subject: Re: Leventhal's challenge misses the point From: Fredrik Lindgren <f.lindgren@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 15:45:08 +0200 |
Miles Sabin wrote: > > XML/XSL is a model-view type architecture. MV is good at > breaking the dependency of data-models on presentation > issues. Unfortunately it's very poor at separating > presentation issues from the data model. That territory > is handled quite nicely by the model-view-controller > architecture: a data-model, a presentation model, and > something which coordinates between the two. > > Translating that into the XML space we'd have something > like: an XML data model (as now), an XML presentation > model (maybe a skeletal FO document), and something that > binds the two together (effectively an imperative > script). Application programmers would focus on the > data-model; designers would focus on the presentation > model (supported by visual tools); and the glue would be > done by a completely separate group ... perhaps they'd > have to be programmer-designers, perhaps just > programmers. Anyhow the upshot would be a clean > separation of concerns and skill-sets. What about XML as the model, FO as view and XSLT as controler? I guess we can't use that though as it's the same as using XML/XSL ;-) Fredrik Lindgren Upright Engineering AB XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: Leventhal's challenge misses th, Miles Sabin | Thread | RE: Leventhal's challenge misses th, Miles Sabin |
RE: Leventhal's challenge misses th, Miles Sabin | Date | Re: Leventhal's challenge misses th, James Clark |
Month |