Re: XML + (XSL | CSS) ?

Subject: Re: XML + (XSL | CSS) ?
From: "Frank Boumphrey" <bckman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 23:40:36 -0400
I believe one of the reasons for the interest in XSL is the MSXSL parser. It
is very difficult to get interested in a hypothetical subject, but the
parser has allowed us to construct viewable pages from XML. I have just
finished using it to translate Jon Bosaks Shakespeare plays marked up in XML
to HTML.

There are other conversion tools out there, but they come without clear
instructions and are difficult for the average intelligent user to use. On
the other hand it takes most of my students only about 5 mins to get the
hang of MSXSL. (No I don't even own microsoft stock!!)

I only hope that if the XSL WR is changed, as I have heard it rumored, to
exclude HTML flow objects, that MS will rapidly come out with a parser to
interpret the new set of flow objects!!

Remember you can't tech a course of carpentry from a text book, and you
can't teach computer skills without adequet tools, and MSXSL for all its
limitations was/is an excellent teaching and learning tool.

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: 'xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx' <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, May 19, 1998 4:43 PM
Subject: RE: XML + (XSL | CSS) ?


>Much as I hate to point out its flaws, remember that the Microsoft XSL
>Processor is a "technology preview", fit for prototyping and possible
>deployment on a limited scale, but we don't consider it to be robust
enough,
>performant enough, or flexible enough for mission-critical applications.
It
>has provided us valuable feedback on both the XSL language and the systems
>which have a need for a technology like XSL.  Thank you for your
enthusiasm,
>I have been getting similar responses from many who have experimented with
>XSL.  This makes me hopeful that a solid and flexible implementation would
>be welcomed by the web community.
>
>The goal in my opinion is to define a minimal XSL 1.0 to enable rapid
>adoption of XSL.  Keeping it simple and tightly tied in with other W3C
>standards, including CSS, will help ensure that implementations can keep up
>and be deployed widely.  Biting off too much at this point would be self
>defeating.  I would hope that XSL could complement CSS rather than being an
>either/or choice.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lisa Pease [mailto:lisap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 1998 3:46 PM
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: XML + (XSL | CSS) ?
>
> Intranet users who have standardized on IE4 (and we do
>business with several
> large companies for whom this is the case) can use XSL now,
>and nothing CSS
> has can meet those needs, yet.
>
> I'm as eager as the next person to see widespread and rapid
>implementation
> of W3C Recs. Experience has taught me this is never as fast
>a process as I
> would like, and so I'm not averse to using whatever best
>suits my needs that
> is available now.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Prescod <papresco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Friday, May 15, 1998 2:17 PM
> Subject: Re: XML + (XSL | CSS) ?
>
>
> >Lisa Pease wrote:
> >>
> >> I can do things today in XSL that I can't yet do in CSS,
>despite full
> >> Recommendation status of both CSS1 and 2.
> >
> >Sort of. Hardly anyone is going to put anything on the Web
>that depends on
> >an Active-X control, so you can't really render XSL
>directly in any
> >browsers. What you can do is convert XML documents to HTML,
>but you could
> >always do that with Python, Jade, Java, Perl, etc. XSL's
>real value will
> >be as a ubiquitous standard that you can depend upon. Right
>now it's just
> >another batch processor in a crowded field.
> >
>
>
>
> XSL-List info and archive:
>http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
>
>
> XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
>


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


Current Thread