Subject: Re: CSS for transformation From: Tyler Baker <tyler@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 11:03:59 -0400 |
"Philippe Le Hégaret" wrote: > Paul Prescod wrote: > > I don't know that there is any real benefit in trading conspiracy > > theories. After an initial scan, the XSL formatting model looks much more > > complete than the CSS model. That doesn't mean that the CSS model is > > wrong, or stupid or was a waste of time to create. It is simply not > > sufficient. That's the nature of progress. Usually it isn't contentious to > > say that older technologies need to be updated to solve new problems. > > I don't think the XSL formatting model looks much more > complete than the CSS model. If you look at the CSS specification > and compare it to the XSL specification, you'll find differences > but these differences can be removed in CSS3. It's not a really big > problem. And if people wants an X, it's very easy to create the XCSS. > XSL wants to poorly transform XML documents into another > XML document and it works (not well, but it works). > They define a new matching way, different than the CSS way. > XSL can't transform an XML document into an unknown format. I know, you > could add a namespace and do a post-processor, but is it the good solution ? > And, if it's not the goal of XSL, should we work on an another solution ? > XSL can't process an XML document very well because it's not > a powerful language. They add xsl:if or xsl:for-each but who wants > to write a program with the XML syntax ? They said, we'll add a script solution > after because users can do stupid things with this, but for the moment, > they don't propose an another solution for this. So we have to write programs > to do the job. > > So, I'm looking for an another solution, different than XSL. Any idea ? Well there is speculation and there is fact. The current XSL draft is working quite well (at least for HTML output) for the needs of a highly-dynamic website I am indirectly involved with. I don't think XSL is supposed to be the end-all solution for everything, but something simple enough that you don't need a complicated programming background just to create a highly-dynamic website. XSL as not a programming language. It is not a scripting language either. I feel XSL's power will be in its simplicity and its ability to change the entire look and feel of a website without changing the content or rewriting about 1000 lines of JavaScript each time. Writing code to present content is just not a very efficient way of delivering dynamic content from a cost perspective. No company in there right mind wants to hire 10 JavaScript experts just to get a website going. XSL I believe will succeed because it will eliminate the need for a lot of the scripting solutions as well as the really high-end web-site server products people use today to get the job done. In the end, this saves businesses money and that is why it will succeed. Tyler XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: CSS for transformation, Philippe Le Hégaret | Thread | Re: CSS for transformation, Philippe Le Hégaret |
Re: CSS for transformation, Philippe Le Hégaret | Date | Re: CSS for transformation, Philippe Le Hégaret |
Month |