Re: Venting

Subject: Re: Venting
From: Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 11:26:11 +0000
Hi Keith.

Yes he does make a very strong point with that.

I would suggest however that it is early days for XSL, and as the
transformative part of XSL is easiest to impliment it was bound to be the

The arguement you're persuing is a bit like saying well none of the browser
manufacturers impliment that bit of HTML so maybe we should just pull it
from the standard.

I might point out that neither of the main browsers support CSS2, but that
doesn't stop it from being a good and valid standard. It might be some time
before they do fully comply to CSS2, but the fact that it's there means
that preasure can be brought to bear on them to gradualy comply over time.
The arguement that suggests that because the standard isn't impliments, it
should be hacked up is a dangerous one for standards, especially when the
standard isn't even out the door.

There's now way that MS or NS will impliment XSL FOs until the standard is
out the door and written in stone, and nobody envisaged that they would.

To be frank, before the standard is ratified to say it's not implimented so
we should drop it, is a little rediculous.


xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 02/09/99 10:27:14 PM

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

Paul makes an excellent point since most of the XSL processors only
implement the "XTL" or tree construction portion of the XSL WD anyway. I
am in favor of splitting the the spec or at least having a further
clarified specification that treats the transformation and formatting as
two separate entities.
Most of the implementors of the XSL processors apparently have felt this
way from the start in my opinion since some are working on the
Transformation process and others are working on the "FO" section.
Paul Prescod wrote:
> Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > Hi.
> >
> > Yes I would rather see 100 XTL languages rather than see XSL sullied.
> Sullied is a pretty vague word. Most of us in favor of separating out the
> transformation language believe that the XSL style language would be
> stronger after that change.
> > If you want to discuss the future of XTL, please go form an XTL mailing
> > list.
> The XSL transformation langauge is currently a part of the XSL
> specification. This is the most appropriate place to discuss it unless
> that changes.
> I would venture that far and away most of the people in this fora are
> using the transformation language without the formatting objects. Would
> you really like all of them to "go away?"
> --
>  Paul Prescod  - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself
> "Remember, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did,
> but she did it backwards and in high heels."
>                                                --Faith Whittlesey
>  XSL-List info and archive:

 XSL-List info and archive:

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread