RE: About XML to multiple language/multiple outputs

Subject: RE: About XML to multiple language/multiple outputs
From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 10:10:00 -0400
Hi Frank,

Frank said:
---------------------------------------------------------
Fear? I wanted to know what the scope of the proposed revision was. You are
the one who is soliciting members of this list to participate in the
revision process; at least let us know the rules of the game. If I wanted to
read the ISO handbook on parliamentary procedures I would have become an ISO
member myself.

Didier says:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Point well taken.

Previous message extracts:
-----------------------------------------------------------
> (I hope this was the motive and not less noble ones).

I don't know what you're insinuating. What would I gain from undermining
DSSSL-2? (I don't work for Microsoft, after all. :)

That said, the way I started out my post,

Me>That is all well and good, but it seems like you are flying into this
Me>without any sense of purpose besides making something "new."

was a little inflammatory, and I apologize if you took it badly.

Didier says:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Point well taken.


Frank said:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Here is the remark of yours which worries me:

Didier Remy wrote on 99/08/13:
> This new draft specification should not be a simple photocopy of DSSSL-1
> but can and preferable should include new improvements and not solely
> minor specifications corrections.

This makes it sound as if you will not be content with a revision unless it
adds some new features. I am not dead set against adding new features, but I
would like to see a rationale for them, and how they sit with the content of
the current standard, as well as some coherence among them. In my opinion,
annexing the XSL standard-to-be is not a good extension because it
duplicates functionality.

Didier says:
----------------------------------------------------------
Why are you pursuing this path? what is the goal? In one hand you apologize
and on the other you jump into it again :-))

I never said I wont be content until new features set are included. I said,
that the first step to the process is to collect needs and more particularly
unfulfilled needs. If new things are added it is to fulfill these
unsatisfied needs. Also, the other kind of needs, are need fulfilled but
with high cost. I mean here, if people would get a simpler way to do what
they want to do, it would take less time (time to learn, time to do,
etc...).

Frank said:
----------------------------------------------------------
It also worries me a great deal when you misinterpret a feature in the
current standard, are corrected by someone on this list, and then propose
your interpretation as an extension to be included in the revision. This
happened when we were discussing the query construction rule. Many people
pointed out the errors in your interpretation(s); then finally you wrote:

Didier Remy wrote on Thu, 15 Jul 1999:
> I agree, but we have to prepare DSSSL-2, do not forget it. And we have
also
> to improve OpenJade and if possible provide powerful new features that
could
> help the community.
...
> So, let's imagine for a moment that we no longer look behind but in front
of
> us and that in front of us there is a new spec to write. let's call it
> DSSSL-2.

It appears, in fact, that the impetus for DSSSL-2 was coincidentally
generated at just this point...

Didier says:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Taking fragments out of context is a sure way to manipulate the information
:-) What are your motives?

Sorry I am not perfect. I am glad to have colleagues that can points me to
errors I do, like I'll point to errors my colleagues do (but always with a
collaborative attitude and respect for my colleagues), take into account
that the amount of knowledge required to cover the entire field is quite
big. This is hard for a single individual to be perfect in all the fields. I
got at least the intellectual honesty to recognize when I do a mistake and a
certain courage to open the process to the group for comments. I doubt that
this kind of flaming is doing something constructive (except annoying people
of this list and me in particular). We already lost half of this message
without any constructive comment about DSSSL-2 or OpenJade.

Now to go back to useful things. The query construct has to be kept "as is"
in the next spec simply for backward compatibility. So, there is no
intentions to remove it. However, there is also an opportunity to improve it
and particularly the query-expression part. There is possibilities to make
it more simple. Ken Holman made an interesting suggestion with a
query-expression able to reach any grove element without procedural
construct but something more like a name space access path. This is
something that need to be studied, commented, documented. (Note: I do not
say here that this has to be like XPath)

Frank said:
------------------------------------------------------------
What worries me most is that we are contemplating extensions to DSSSL, but
not only is there still no complete implementation of the thing (e.g., grove
plans and the full page model), and only one widely available partial
implementation (Open-/Jade), but people already complain that DSSSL is too
complex. I think these are quite serious indictments of the usefulness of
the _standard_ (but not of OpenJade).

Didier says:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Some people worry that DSSSL is too complex and some of these people are now
using XSL. Also, if you participate to the XSL list, you'll notice that once
in a while there are also people saying that XSL is too complex. There is
always people to say that it is too complex. What is interesting is to
listen to people saying that a particular concept is too hard to learn (we
can improve it by bringing it to more simplicity). That a particular
construct is too complex to write (we can then simplify this construct). As
long as we can know what exactly is complex or is not very "usable" we can
try at least to fix it. This is called evolution.

Frank said:
--------------------------------------------------------------
In view of the above points, I think the focus should be on simplifying,
clarifying and trimming down the standard as much as possible. (However,
adding some small things like "or" rules or Clark's Scheme "import" are
mostly harmless; indeed, they probably add some integrity to the standard.)
If that can't be done as an ISO revision, because it doesn't allow breaking
backwards compatibility, then maybe the best thing is just to let the
standard lapse into oblivion, like the way a good economic policy will let
banks in trouble die off so that they can be replaced by better-managed
banks.

Didier says:
---------------------------------------------------------------
I agree, the goal is not to make things more complex but to make them easier
to use.

Frank said:
---------------------------------------------------------------
For example, bringing the display model into a closer alignment with that of
CSS and XSL is a good thing, but can it be done in a strictly backwards
compatible way? And, if doing so requires DSSSL to subsume the entire XSL
standard, including the "template" syntax (which you suggested), then is it
really worth the effort?

Didier said:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody said we would subsume the entire XSL. You just said that, nobody else
did. Is flaming always your style of discussion? (simply curious).

Yes I agree, we have to work to improve the visual objects but not
necessarily to make them compatible with CSS objects. To do so, we have to
add new characteristics to already existing visual object to make them able
to fultil the requirements of on-line rendition
(bakground-color,background-image, border etc...). The page and page model
flow objects are still missing. We need help in the OpenJade project, so a
positive and constructive effort would be to help us build them. What about
this proposition Frank?

Didier said:
---------------------------------------------------------------
> First, like Brandon said, do not worry about the ISO process. It is a
> process well organized and nothing will be thrown out without careful
> attention from ISO members. The first step we are taking is to
> aggregate all
> the knowledge we gained in the last 5 years. Also, to aggregate the
> knowledge now found outside of DSSSL and now part of some W3C
> recommendations. All this knowledge is useful and should be
> synthesized, and
> made "explicit" as much as possible in a document.

Frank said:
---------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not worried about the ISO process. But just because there will be a
formal committee considering the issues doesn't mean that we have to sit on
our hands. You want us to participate, right? But when I ask for some
clarifications on what the revision is supposed to accomplish, suddenly you
are threatening to revoke our "privileges," like some angry parent
considering aloud whether he will ground his children:

> However comments like:
> it seems like you are flying into this "without any sense of purpose
besides
> making something "new."
> Could make me regret having chosen an open dialog with the DSSSL
community.
> I could have chosen to prepare the draft behind closed doors without any
> previous consultation from the user community.

Didier says:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frank, I have noticed the pattern that each paragraph contains personal
attack? This is wasted efforts. What about putting all this energy into
implementing the page and page model flow objects instead? The OpenJade
project needs help and you would have the occasion to help your other DSSSL
fellows.

No, do not mix things, I just expressed a feeling . Matthias reminded me not
to overreact, and I thank him for this. I never got the intention to revoke
any privileges. I always expressed the intention to build this draft from
the people's needs and from the experience and wisdom of the DSSSL
community. I never said, however, that I am a punching ball :-)))

Food for thought:
Its easy to criticize not easy to build.....
To err is human, to recognize it is courage.
To build with, is not to fight against, it is to help.

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



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


Current Thread