Re: XML + (XSL | CSS) ?

["Lisa Pease" <lisap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I would also stress, coming from the standpoint of instruction, that it is
simpler to teach people XSL when the HTML flow objects are available. It
gives them a point of reference, and encourages them to use the technology
sooner.

If the HTML flow objects are dropped, I imagine that far smaller numbers of
people will be encouraged to learn what would then be a wholly unfamiliar
technology, and then we will not reap the full benefits of XML.

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Boumphrey <bckman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Johnathan Marsh <jmarsh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, May 21, 1998 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: XML + (XSL | CSS) ?


>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
>


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