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

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

> From: Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx]

> On the subject of a super or subset approach to XSL, wouldn't 
> it be the
> case of transformation as the core
> and formatting as the superset?

Careful, that almost sounds like an argument that the two parts are
separable.  :)

If they are separable, the question that some of us pose is whether the same
language can effectively cover both -- or whether the hybrid will end up
being inadequate on both accounts.  (Equally, whether the same group of
people have time to effectively address both.)

...

Replying to a message in another thread:

>I feel that maybe this discourse is
>moving into considering areas that aren't really within the remit of the
>original design goals of XSL, or indeed XML itself.

I double-checked the XSL spec; it has an awful lot of things in there that
seem pretty focussed on print in my mind.  RPMD.  [Reasonable People May
Disagree]

Personally, if XSL is only for the Web, I'd rather stick with CSS.

*My* bias is that documents currently have to be created at least twice: for
print & for the Web.  Creating & maintaining 2 versions is a nightmare.
That's what I want XML/"XSL" to fix.

Scott

P.S. I think I've said my piece so I'll try to be quiet for awhile.  :)


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