RE: [xsl] The Future of Browser-Bound XML?

[Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 03:58 PM 7/3/2002, Brad wrote:
> ~Then there's XSLFO... but from what I've read that's more aimed at the 
> printed
> ~word, and all the examples I've seen are diplayed as PDF files.
>
> Correct, however there are many other forms of converting XML to printed 
> outputs. We tend to use Perl and LaTeX. But you could use XSL-FO and 
> passiveTex to make postscript files or pdf.

Not to mention the increasing number of tools that will import XML into a 
page layout program (with various methods of specifying style and layout).

Or converting into HTML and opening in some word processor that claims to 
do that....

>  There are other ways like DSSSL which was very popular with formatting 
> SGML, but I think a lot of people have strayed away from DSSSL these days.

I'm not sure DSSSL was ever "very popular" -- but in any case, XSLT is very 
much a kind of DSSSL-Lite.

> ~So what are we supposed to use to display XML files to the web without first
> ~changing them into the HTML/CSS paradigm? Or is that how we're "supposed" 
> to do it?
>
> Yes that is how you are supposed to do it.

But it depends on who's doing the supposing don't it?

> We are working on several different stylesheets that will allow different 
> people in the company to see the same content in a way that is geared 
> towards their final output. For example we have an HTML preview of XML 
> docs that is in the format of training materials for our trainers. They 
> can edit the XML in XMetaL in a pleasing interface and then click a button 
> to see what the end result will look like. These materials will end up 
> being printed, but for a quick glance HTML works very good and is faster 
> than generating a pdf.
> These files that the trainers are editing are actually fragments of the 
> overall help. So by them being industry experts and modifying the content 
> to make their training materials better they are actually making the rest 
> of the help and other materials that are generated from the same sources 
> better too. Of course there is a lot that goes into the editing and 
> approval but you get the idea.

This is a nice synopsis of using XML to its strengths. You don't have to 
insist on WYSIWYG at every stage of a production process in order to get 
very good results. On the contrary, "false color proofs" (proof versions 
that have formatting enhancements of various elements to bring them to an 
editor's attention, but which don't appear in the final output) have a long 
history in the publishing industry.

Cheers,
Wendell


======================================================================
Wendell Piez                            mailto:wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mulberry Technologies, Inc.                http://www.mulberrytech.com
17 West Jefferson Street                    Direct Phone: 301/315-9635
Suite 207                                          Phone: 301/315-9631
Rockville, MD  20850                                 Fax: 301/315-8285
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in SGML and XML
======================================================================


XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list