Re: XSL and HTML

[Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx]

Hi.

We seem to be into the realms of language purity, purity of intent etc.,
etc.

God forbid that a Web designer/developer should have their needs met by XSL
(delivering to HTML/javaScript... ohh you naive fool :), what matters is
the purity of the language, or some abstract notion thereof.

At least some of what I said made sense to you, what you're saying makes
sense to me, so there must be some commonality of interest there (read:
need), but I'm getting tired trying to convey that need.

I don't think it coincidence that MS have gone ahead and implimented the
<xsl:cdata> tag, there is an obvious need for this in order to deliver in
the *current* environment, which MS would certianly seem to be responding
to.

I find it kind of ironic that when consideraing what is certianly to a
large degree all be it not exclusively a Web technology, that as a Web
designer I'm starting to feel marginalised :)

If XSL cares not a jot for the needs of the Web designer would somebody
remind me again who the language is being designed for? I remember the
print designers as being a target audience, but who else?

Yes, I apologise, I am starting to get sarcastic.

Now I've got to try and convince my colleagues that returning to static Web
pages might be a good thing ::chuckle::

Cheers
     Guy.





xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 01/14/99 07:07:11 PM

To:   xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc:    (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID)
Subject:  Re: XSL and HTML




[SNIP]
What possible advantage there is in _not_ providing these tags is beyond
me.
Share & Enjoy,
    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