Re: Venting

Subject: Re: Venting
From: Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 10:49:22 +0000

The fundamental flaw with your "venting" here is that you are addressing a
language that hasn't been finished yet, never mind implimented.

Please, *don't look for finished results in a language not finished*.

The FOs are the last part of the language that vertainly browser makers
will impliment as it involves changes to their rendering engines, rather
than bolting on mime-viewers. They major browser makers wont impliment this
until the Rec is nailed down. I don't believe that you aren't aware of
this, so addressing it as a flaw in the language.... I call "foul!", umpire
please eject this player.

Dealing with a language at the stage XSL is at ie., the formative stage
*will be challenging* and present difficulties. There is no way around
this. This isn't a flaw of the language or the WG. If whoever you're trying
to explain XSL to isn't up to the challenge, ask them to wait until XSL is
finished, and go on to explain XML with CSS formatting. You can't advocate
nerfing a language because some people aren't understanding its formative


xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 02/04/99 07:29:25 AM

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

"Style application is ONE thing you can do with XSL but only one. It isn't
REALLY a style language at all. Or, to be precise, it has two parts and
the two parts together are a style language but if you throw away one part
you end up with something which is much more general and in many ways much
more powerful. Sorry. I'm confusing you. Let me back up. You take the XSL
style language and you throw away the style part and you get this cool
transformation language. What's it called? Well, it doesn't really have a
name. It's XSL without the style parts."

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread