RE: XSL intent survey

["Lawton, Scott" <slawton@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Actually I can not see any use at all for having a style language that
> can not do transformations. Given that you are going to have to
> transform the original parse tree to produce the required output tree
> for the formatting, why not just add the formatting characteristics as
> you construct that tree (as you can do in a combined language) rather
> than have to go over the tree again adding formatting characteristics
> with a second style language?

Two different audiences.

Tranforming an arbitrary document into a Web version and a print version
(two targets with very different characteristic) is likely to involve some
reasonably sophisticated transformation.  Once accomplished, it would be
nice for "anyone" to be able to adjust things like font/size/style, page
size (e.g. A4 vs. US letter), margins and such.  I'm not sure if one
language can provide sufficient rich transformations for the first group and
sufficiently simple "style changes" for the second.

Scott


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