RE: XML Transformation Language (was Re: removing HTML flow

At 17:03 98/05/26 -0400, Rob McDougall wrote:
>I worry that XSL will "define by implication" an XML transformation
>facility.
>...
>Whether they intend to or not, the XSL WG will be defining a
>transformation facility to transform a generic XML document.

I think James' semantics and associated flow objects for "formatting output
into SGML syntax" (my quotes, not his) used in JADE have been shown to be
effective in transforming structured information from one model into an
instance conforming to another model.

I would hope such semantics would be available in the upcoming XSL (either
by specification or at least by extension as they are currently expressed
as non-standard extensions to DSSSL using a standardized extension
technique).  The flow objects may end up being different, but the semantics
of "formatting into markup syntax" have been proven as being useful.

>I'd like to see someone take the time to think through
>and define what features should be in a generic XML processor before
>they run off and design a specific instance of one.

How would you characterize (perhaps by example) such a "feature of a
generic XML processor"?  Need XML processors necessarily have common
features?  Wouldn't different XML processor vendors wish to compete with
product differentiation of features?

........ Ken

--
G. Ken Holman            mailto:gkholman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Crane Softwrights Ltd.  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com
Box 266,                             V: +1(613)489-0999
Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0         F: +1(613)489-0995
PGP Privacy: http://www.cyberus.ca/~holman/gkholman.pgp
Training:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/schedule.htm
Shareware:   http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/shareware/


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