Subject: Re: why split? [was RE: XSL intent survey] From: Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 10:41:07 +0000 |
Hi Oren. If consensus is that trnsformation is secondary then fair enough. Personaly I can't get my head around it being this way round my heads going round in a loop saying "but you transform *to* formatting objects" therefore the transformation comes first. It doesn't matter what formatting object you have, or how they're implimented, if you can't transform XML into them they're no good to you... to my mind this places transformative concerns first. Also given that I may not want to use these formatting object (personaly I probably would prefer them), I may want to transform to well formed HTML, in which case I'll only ever use the transformation part of the language. Also, how long will it be before browser rendering engines support these formatting objects? Think on it this way... I can run XSL transformation on a server, not using formatting objects, simply using the transformative part of XSL, delivery HTML to the client browser. Given the wide ranging support for HTML 3.2, on a practical level I need never worry about the rendering abilities of the client. Unless XSL can play to this strength, it will fall into the same problems as IE and NS have done with CSS rendering, with it's formatting objects, and I don't see that we'll be that much further down the road. In short the scenario I describing is en effective replacement for the likes of ASP and PHP on the server when dealing with XML. If I can't process XML with XSL and get the desired result tree I wanr, then I'm pretty much going to stick with an ASP/PHP like option. I suspect that many other developers would make a similar choice. I'm not arguing that the formatting object shouldn't be there, they should, simply that I want to be confident that I can get to the flow objects I want (deliberate use of the term because they may not be XSL FOs) before I concern myself with what they are. If I can't get to them they're useless to me. Cheers Guy. xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 11/24/98 04:17:05 AM To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cc: (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID) Subject: Re: why split? [was RE: XSL intent survey] Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >... So we'd have transformative declarative syntax, with optional flow objects, >and optional scripting. To my mind (and I realise >everybody has their own biased interests) this would be an appropriate >order for prioritising consideration. This is fine, except it places the transformation issues "before" the formatting. This whole thing started when it was pointed out that the transformation issues were secondary - if you go by the original intent. You get a different language if you want a "transformation language with optional formatting" or a "formatting language with some transformations". This isn't just playing with words - each part requires a lot of effort to do well, and there's only so much to go around. There are also downright conflicts - with regard to the language complexity and intended audience, for example. Have fun, Oren Ben-Kiki XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: why split? [was RE: XSL intent , Daniel Glazman | Thread | Re: why split? [was RE: XSL intent , Oren Ben-Kiki |
Re: Stepping back, for a moment..., David Carlisle | Date | ANN: New Release of the Koala XSL e, Jeremy CALLES |
Month |