Subject: Re: Interactive XML From: Sharon Adler <sca@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 18:37:09 -0400 |
At 10:47 AM 6/27/98 +0100, Martin Bryan wrote: >Sharon > > >>Martin, we do not know what will be included in version 1.0 so you >certainly >>do not. Please do not make statements that imply you have information that >>you do not have. Version 1.0 of XSL is scheduled for July, 1999. We are >>working feverishly to get out a small Working Draft for next month. It >will >>not provide you with information on what will be in the July '99 document >>either. It is our FIRST WORKING DRAFT and we should be given the courtesy >to >>have some time to develop coherent, well thought out, workable proposals >for >>this complex subject in more than 4 months. > >I am sorry if my message upset you. However, I would point you to my actual >words, which you do not seem to have read: "I live in hope and eagerly await >next month's *draft* in the hope I will be proved wrong." Martin, I very much READ your comments and that is why I wrote. You said and I quote "I live in hope and eagerly await >next month's *draft* in the hope I will be proved wrong." This appears to the naive reader that when there is no interactivity in the July Draft that we aren't doing it. That is not so and I wanted to make certain that people could understand that. I've known you for years and if you have questions, instead of jumping to conclusions I would appreciate the courtesy of asking for information directly. If I am able to answer I will. We could spend our time writing requirements documents or spend our time writing Standards. Which do you prefer? Beautiful requirements documents but no time to do Standards to back them up. > >I was under the mistaken impression from what had been said previously >that the final text had to be sorted out in Sept/Oct for voting >on by January. Such a schedule would not give us time for debate about >requirements, which was one of my concern areas. I have previously noted >that there were no adequate statement of requirements re interactivity >prepared for the first draft, which seems to me to mean that there cannot be >any such features until version 2.0, which will be at least a year after the >1999 date of Version 1.0. The revised timetable will make it easier to lobby >for what is required to be put in Version 1.0, but not having seen any >revision of the user requirements, or the first draft, it is very difficult >for me to come to any clear determination. > >I would remind you that there is much other work held up waiting for the >decisions of your committee. In particular I am unable to determine how much >work is needed for interactivity control within the XML/EDI projects that >are currently being proposed worldwide because of lack of guidance as to >what the aims of the XSL committee are in this area. News to me. If you need information I would suggest that you use the formal channels to get the information instead of making it up on your own. We are not mind-readers. The requirements document was designed to give a flavor of the areas we tend to pursue. If you have specific information you wish to know please let us know. I answered one set of your questions already. I would gladly do so again. When we work on interactivity we will consider the requirements you have listed herein. Once I know what you >plan to do I can do something about explaining to an industry that is now >keen to start actively exploring the role of XML what they can do with it. > >The XML/EDI community has a much wider need for interactivity than those >currently being discussed by this list. Simply providing the functionality >found in HTML >forms or exsiting GUIs is *not* sufficient for this potentially very large >user community. >For electronic commerce you need to be able to extend the simple form >creation specification currently being considered to do things like: > >a) check that the value entered in a form conforms to a predefined lexical >value, >or matches one of the entries in a referenced database (either on the local >server, in cached memory or on a remote server) >b) create menus whose lists of options can be created on-the-fly by >selecting options from >a referenced database >c) allow the selection of one item in one menu to change the contents of >another menu (e.g. if I select Supplier X then the list of options in the >next menu changes to display only those items created by Supplier X) without >having to make an additional call over the clogged network. >d) allow sections of forms to be removed from, or added to, the display when >a certain option is selected for a particular field. > >Most of these functions could be acheivable with a few extensions to >ECMAScript, >provided that this general purpose langaguage is adopted by XSL as the main >means >of associating programmable behaviour with XML elements. At present it is >far from >clear that this will be the case. > >My one big worry is that I will have to tell the XML/EDI user community > "Sorry XSL cannot do what we need it to do, so we will have to develop our >own interactivity control >language, and drop the idea of using any features that may later on be >standardized as part of XSL". At the moment this, unfortunately, looks to me >to be >the most likely scenario in the XML/EDI world. Perhaps, but that will only happen if you want it to happen. This committee deserves more than 4 months to write a complex standard that must do more than just what you wish it to do. > >Martin Bryan > > > > 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 |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Interactive XML, Martin Bryan | Thread | RE: Interactive XML, Pawson, David |
Re: Interactive XML, Martin Bryan | Date | RE: Interactive XML, Pawson, David |
Month |