Re: why split? [was RE: XSL intent survey]

["John E. Simpson" <simpson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Oren (et al.) --

Something just occurred to me that might let us "have it both ways." I
offer it in the hopes that it will either be peppered with buckshot as
essentially unworkable, or not :).

The discussion has been framed as a choice between splitting XSL into
transformation and presentation components, and putting both of those
components into a single baseket, as it were. I wonder if there might be a
"middle way": supersetting XSL with a more robust transformation-only
level. As I'm envisioning it, XSL-Core would provide all of the formatting
facilities and a modicum of transformations -- certainly at least those
necessary to make the formatting work. XSL-Enhanced (or whatever) would use
the same "syntax" as -Core but provide a richer, more complex set of
transformational capabilities (such as those possible with full-blown DSSSL
or TeX, maybe, although I'm not familiar enough with either to say for sure).

This would not completely resolve the issue. As an XML application in its
own right, XSL would still remain at root a declarative language, not a
procedural one, and so those who long to make it function as a "scripting"
language are probably going to remain disappointed.

Best,
JES
=============================================================
John E. Simpson          | It's no disgrace t'be poor, 
simpson@xxxxxxxxxxx      | but it might as well be.
                         |            -- "Kin" Hubbard


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