Re: XML + (XSL | CSS) ?

Lisa Pease wrote:
> 
> I would also stress, coming from the standpoint of instruction, that it is
> simpler to teach people XSL when the HTML flow objects are available. It
> gives them a point of reference, and encourages them to use the technology
> sooner.

I feel that this just leads them to believe that XSL is something it is
not. Many of the questions on this newsgroup demonstrate that point well.
Getting people to use XSL quickly is important, but not at the price of
confusing them about what XSL is and how it works.

I don't think that regular flow objects need be complicated, if they are
chosen carefully. "Paragraph", "Heading" and "Link" are much more
intuitive than "P", "H1" and "A", to most people. Let's not forget that
most of the people we hope will learn XSL do not yet know HTML, or any
other markup language. They may not even know that they can publish on the
web yet.
 
> If the HTML flow objects are dropped, I imagine that far smaller numbers of
> people will be encouraged to learn what would then be a wholly unfamiliar
> technology, and then we will not reap the full benefits of XML.

I do not believe that even for someone trained in HTML, it is much more
difficult to learn "Paragraph" instead of "P". Compared to the other
things that they must learn to use XSL, (XML, rules, patterns, actions)
the distinction between "P" and "Paragraph" is quite minor.

Paul Prescod  - http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco

"A writer is also a citizen, a political animal, whether he likes it or 
not. But I do not accept that a writer has a greater obligation 
to society than a musician or a mason or a teacher. Everyone has
a citizen's commitment."  - Wole Soyinka, Africa's first Nobel Laureate



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