Subject: Re: Venting From: Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 17:46:08 +0000 |
Hi. Your point is well made.... would anybody care to suggest that Calculus be split away from maths because it has uses that don't require the rest of the maths bagage? If only a part of XSL is of interest to an individual, cool. Nobody is suggesting that they have to use every single expression within XSL. Just because somebody doesn't express interest in another part of XSL doesn't mean that that part should be thrown out. For me, the transformation and the formatting are both essential parts of expressing style. I understand if this isn't so for you. Some vendors may want an XTL, a generic transformation language, without formatting. If so *go make one*, please don't hijack XSL as a style language. We have vendors on the list comming forward saying that because they only impliment the transformation they can't declare 100% XSL compliance (an impossibility at this stage anyway), so please hack off the formatting. I must be missing something here, as I respect the intelligence of the people gathered on this list.... but I can't see why. The purpose of XSL isn't to produce a generic transformative language, but a styling language. If good transformation is a side-effect all the better. People saw the potential of XSL pattern matching syntax, and wheren'y interested in the formatting. They didn't try and hijack XSL... they instead went off and talked about XQL based upon XSL pattern matching. If you don't want formatting go develop XTL in any which way suits you. XSL however is for styling. If it doesn't serve your need for inter-process communication, go find something that does, if it doesn't deal with 101 other transformative needs tough... *it's purpose is styling*.... can we please remember that. If we decide that we don't need transformation for styling, why did we waste all this time, we could have just beefed up CSS some more? But as has been discussed at length, we do need transformation with formatting for styling hence XSL. Why should I worry about the language being split, and the transformation part being carried off, and moulded to a more generic purpose, then layered with FOs.... becaus then the focus wouldn't be on producing optimal transformation for styling, and I fear it would get bent in several different directions, none of which have anything to do with XML styling. Cheers Guy. xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 02/05/99 07:37:45 PM To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cc: aphilips@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID) Subject: Re: Venting Thu, 04 Feb 1999 11:25:18, Paul Prescod writes: But there will always be transforming parsers because *they are useful*. [SNIP] Would anyone argue that Calculus should be taught and used only with Physics? Are transistors only to be used with telecommunications? Should the wheel only be used with farm equipment? XSL's transformation language may not be in the same league as these other inventions (some on this list may argue that point), but the analogy holds. [SNIP] Sincerely, Andy Philips Oracle Corporation My opinions may not represent those of my employer. 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: Venting, Andrew Philips | Thread | RE: Venting, Didier PH Martin |
Re: XSL Parameters was: RE: Accessi, Guy_Murphy | Date | RE: Venting, Didier PH Martin |
Month |