RE: XSL

["Didier PH Martin" <martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi John

[.... long comment....]

<Reply>
In fact, actual concrete XSL development is taking the opposite direction
that DSSSL development took. James implemented only the FO part of dsssl and
not the transformation part. In the case of the xsl, only the transformation
part is implemented and not the FO part (most of the implementations).
However, with DSSSL extensions you can, in fact do either SGML or XML
transformations. This last feature is not part of most XSL engines. You
cannot convert a SGML document into something else and you can convert XML
documents into a limited set of SGML type (HTML).

My conclusion:
XSL specs are still work in progress. XSL can be very popular for people not
knowing DSSSL on the server side to convert XML into HTML. CSS will be more
popular for XML rendition on the client side. W3C should split the XSL spec
into two modules so that one module can be released sooner than the other.

About your trust in James. I think James will appreciate. Don't forget that
the workgroup output is not the work of a single person but reflect the
consensus reached within the group. The group is composed of members
sponsoring W3C. So James is not alone to do XSL specs. If James where alone
in the process, most of the issues would have been resolved but, it is a
consensus work not a soliloquy.

For DSSSL users (purist like John call them) no problems dsssl can do a lot
more actually than XSL do :-)

By the way, I am still working on the macro bug and found a way to optimize
macro execution. While I am in the code, did someone tried Tony Graham
macros?, the example I posted to this list showing the menu XML document
transformed into HTML+CSS with HTML macros? Any comments on this? Or simply,
just tell me if you think it is a good idea :-)
</Reply>

Regards
Didier PH Martin
mailto:martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.netfolder.com


 DSSSList info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist