RE: More XSL Discussion

I've considered that this would be useful from the start.  Doesn't it
seem reasonable that the transformation step would be required in many
many different XML utilities?  Doesn't a general XML->XML translation
system seem like the right thing to do?

I think breaking it up into two steps is the right thing to do.  IMO,
the only thing that these two steps really have in common is that they
both require some sort of "pattern" mechanism to locate their targets.
I think it's reasonable to therefore break them up into to separate
steps that share a common syntax for specifying a target element.

Of course, once one has separated them out, one has to ask oneself if
the second step is really needed?  Couldn't the transformation be used
to insert "Inline Styles"? :)

Rob

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Richard Light [SMTP:richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent:	Friday, February 27, 1998 6:04 AM
>To:	xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject:	Re: More XSL Discussion
>
>[Snip]
> 
>Is there any support for the idea of making XSL into a two-stage
>process: transformation followed by styling?
>
>[The irony of this is that the current MSXSL - because it allows you to
>generate _any_ element type and not just valid HTML (whatever that might
>be) - is actually quite a nifty transformation tool as it stands.  So
>maybe we just need to run it twice: once to transform and a second time
>to style!]
>
>Richard Light.
>
>Richard Light
>SGML/XML and Museum Information Consultancy
>richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list