Defining widget flow objects (was Re: Interactive XML)

["Bill Lindsey" <blindsey@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

David vun Kannon (dvunkannon@xxxxxxxx) wrote:

>         However, I think the whole discussion of what is, in effect, UIML, is somewhat
> inappropriate to this list. We don't need this or any other random set of flow
> objects rammed into any particular rev of the XSL spec. We need a general way to
> declare which flow objects the style sheet is using and where to acquire a
> rendering engine for that set. Then the W3C will be out of the flow object
> business except for the case of HTML, which is a standard it owns. Then Adobe
> can sell a package of PGML flow objects and a style sheet can turn database
> output into hyperlinked infographics, and the milling machine industry
> consortium that defines Numeric Controller ML can rest easy, knowing that the
> software suppliers that support that industry will implement the flow object
> library that will allow database output to be rendered as milled metal, XML
> document to engine block via a style sheet.


Interesting idea, but don't think I agree.  You seem to be
saying that specifying the semantics of flow objects should
not be part of the XSL mandate. Or, should it just be limited
to two dimensional formatting flow objects?   

I would think that the specification of the behavior of 
flow objects is precisely the value of XSL.  That's how
we get inter-operability. If I have to write separate 
stylesheets for Netscape flow objects, and Microsoft 
flow objects, what's the point of using XSL? I might just
as well use their proprietary, optimized 
XML styling languages.  

-Bill


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