Re: Stepping back, part two...

Subject: Re: Stepping back, part two...
From: Sebastian Rahtz <s.rahtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 15:28:12 +0000 (GMT)
Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
 > In answer to your last question, I think that XML is primarily for the Web,
hmm. as i understand XML, it was born from conversations between Jon
Bosak and Tim Bray about the need for a simpler SGML for dynamic
parsing in *such things as* Web browsers. and then they snuck it
through the W3C, at which point the W3C woke up and realized it had a
winner, hence claiming undeserved back brownie points. Lets not
pretend it was a W3C initiative, please.

and now, of course, XML has escaped to the whole world. do not 7
industry analysts out of 10 who eat breakfast cereal agree that
more XML will be seen only by machines than humans? ie as a process
interchange format? 

hence I don't buy the Web hugging XML to its chest like a child with a
new teddy bear

 > So rather than push out an XSL 1.0, and worry about what we can add in XSL
 > 1.5 or 2.0, I suggest the W3C gets bogged down in how
 > XSL can best syntactically represent phonemes and intonation... yes I am
thats not the job of XSL, thats the job of the FO renderer. the access
people will surely thank you more for an abstract FO tree than a set
of low level HTML tags

 > being facetious... but that might be because my company wants to move to
 > XML now, and as the implimentor I really don't want to have to develop
 > complex applications parsing the XML DOM :)
I don't know why they would be more complex than the corresponding XSL
style sheet. i'd say they'd be rather similar

 > So if I appear a little impassioned in some of my posts it's because I feel
 > impassioned by XSL... I want XSL... And I want to now, not next August.
see the analogy of the child with the teddy. what is so urgent? be
calm. take a holiday.

 > possibility of an ensuing battle over differing XSL interests. I don't
 > however feel that XSL will succeed as a language if it seeks to cater to
 > all interests. 

and i don't feel that XSL has a snowball's chance in hell if its rushed
out prematurely under buffetting from "i want sweeties and i want them
NOW or I'll sick". but then what hope does XSL have anyway, being
developed in the public glare like this? the original XML group must
be thanking their lucky stars they were able to proceed in relative peace

 > So my ghettoised viewpoint is
 > XML/XSL/Web/Screen/v1.0/March99 ...we can worry about adding the gloss
as i understand the weird and wonderful entity that is W3C, your
correct course of action is to join the W3C and badger your way onto
the XSL group and shout loudly there. it'll probably work :-}

sebastian "walk dont run" rahtz

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread