Re: Leventhal's challenge misses the point

Subject: Re: Leventhal's challenge misses the point
From: "Guy Murphy" <guy-murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 20:43:22 +0100
Hi Heikii.

> Hi Guido,

::chuckle:: I nearly missed that.


> > Are you suggesting then that the Web is safer if we mandate
> > with CSS as the standard means for styling XML?
> What do you mean by safer?
> I do not think I have never said anything about safer web in this debate.

I belive my reason for using the term "safer" was because you suggested that
Michaels concern was the safety of the Web.

> > My personal concern for the safety of the Web is the DOM+ECMAScript
> Or do you mean the scripting part? ECMAScript is pretty safe although
> potentially dangerous, I do not know XSL well enough to know if it could
> misused. Did you know that PostScript is a programming language and that
> can never be sure that when you try to view PS it might trash your HD or
> something?

Well I don't necessarily mean just ECMAScript granted, but any script. I do
however mean DOM+Script, as DOM is just an API and its consideration away
from a language can encourage dubious assertions (not suggesting on your

And the safety I'm talking about isn't of the HD crashing kind, more in the
vein of the infamous "TechnologyX Considered Harmful!". I personaly find it
cheeky to suggest that DOM+Script is safer for Web styling than XSL
::shrug:: just my opinion.


> There are a huge number of documents that do not and will not need any
> of transformations (which is the part that requires scripting in the
> DOM+CSS+script model).

I don't quote see this Heikii. Why do static documents requiring no
transformation require DOM+Script? Surely they only require CSS?

> Interactivity is something you cannot achieve without scripting, even if
> use XSL.

Interactivity isn't realy a styling issue. It's and XML/DOM issue. If the
user agent has an XML DOM that supports interactivity then FOs can be as
interactive as any other mark-up. For instance, IE5 supports interactive
HTML at present, so if you deliver HTML to IE5 from XSL you have interactive
formatting objects (with a small f and o :). There's no reason why XSL FOs
can't be interactive.

I see this as a DOM issue, not an XSL issue. Yes there is work to be done
*between* the two WGs, but it isn't an inherant problem with XSL any more
than it was with HTML, or CSS.

> Neither me nor Michael is speaking in the name of the company we work for.
> The views of Michael and me differ somewhat in regard with this debate
> XSL, and I believe everyone at Citec has his/hers own opinions about it
> although most likely the majority sides with Michael. We have done no
> surveys, though. I believe the same is true for most companies. As far as
> know Citec has no opinions about anything, except maybe that standards are
> good :)

I take your point well, that your views are personal. I think some can be
forgiven for interpreting a company interest at work though when Michael
starts making reference to his crack 'Zilla development team in his initial
challenge. This wasn't as part of a discrete communication, but a very
public declaration of war.

Personally Heikii, I believe that there is a company interest that is
abundantly clear.

::shrug:: Personally I think such interests are understandable, and what is
more appropriate. I just prefer such interests to be tabled clearly rather
than under the banner of concern for the Web.

> --
>   Heikki Toivonen

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread