Subject: Re: Venting From: Francois Belanger <francois@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 4 Feb 99 09:45:22 -0500 |
Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on 04/02/99 08h36: >I don't think such a change in charter could be implimented without >seriously pushing back the delivery of the final Rec.... how popular might >a move such as this be? Au contraire! separating the two components would probably mean the selection part of XSL would be completed much faster as it would not have to wait for the FO to be defined and put to task. As the selection part is being used and tested everyday by member of this group among others, it's getting fast near completion IMHO. One *big* gain of separating the two components of XSL is to make it possible for other formatting languages such as CSS to evolve into formatting objects for XSL selection model, CSS authors have already proposed that. I personnaly find utopious to think one formatting language will solve all layout problems: it just won't happen for historical (no support for older browsers), syntaxical (FO would be so complicated and not comprehensible for most designers, the real end users of FOs) and practical reasons (we will face *a lot* of resistance in forcing yet another styling language in order to use XSL selection language). The "just ignore the FO portion of the spec" attitude is short-term minded and will cause a lot of problems, similar to those we have today with HTML. W3C: split XSL, ASAP. Francois Belanger Sitepak, Bringing Internet Business into Focus http://www.sitepak.com XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Venting, Paul Prescod | Thread | Re: Venting, Guy_Murphy |
Re: Explorer Treeview with XSL, 6tk2 | Date | RE: Venting, Didier PH Martin |
Month |