RE: Venting

Subject: RE: Venting
From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 13:02:15 -0500
Hi Guy,
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.

I guess you are right on several points.

a) yes some vendors want to say to their customer that their stuff is 100%
XSL compatible and show that the proprietary stuff era is finished. But, as
always, history will repeat itself.
b) you said that W3 already showed in its history an incredible resilience
to change. I guess you are right on that to.
c) DSSSL experience showed that even if part of a spec is implemented in
current products, people are using it and, after a while, associated DSSSL
with what's really there and not what's on the paper anyway. So, even, if
XSL implementations are incomplete, people will use what's available because
it is useful and I should say a great part of it is well thought. After a
while XSL will be more associated to what is provided in the real world than
on paper.
d) Paul proposed a manifesto to express formally the view of those who think
XSL should be split in two anf the reason why is should be so, I offered
help, no answer from anybody, including Paul except that he has to take care
of his nighty :-) (Sorry Paul, I couldn't resist). Its clear what I should
deduct from that and go back to conformity (OK maybe a blue tee shirt
instead of a blue suit :-)
e) Some manufacturers will add useful features to the language and people
will use it. Some will again cry foul against proprietary stuff. But in
reality, manufacturers had to do that to respond to customer needs and again
a spec has to be adapted to reality. This is good in fact, at least, we can
still innovate a bit and not be constrained like in the middles ages where
only one voice where permitted.
F) we showed that this group don't suffer from groupthink :-)
g) the collision of idea created some interesting concepts, I noted them and
probably other people will need that in real implementations even if it is
not 100% pure because at least it is useful.
h) Finally the real power is in the hands of the developers and the users.
So XSL will be what developers will implement and what users will ask for. I
guess the rest is not so important after all. Only action talk on the long

Let's go back to work now and provide real stuff to this world.

Did someone tried the experiment to generate Tex FOs with XSL
"tranformation"? To be more particular LaTex FOs?

A paper may influence action but it is action that build the world

Didier PH Martin

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread