Re: XSL intent survey

My vote:

1: I feel that the W3 organization should address the transformation vs.
formatting issue:
    yes

2: We need separate transformation and formatting (style sheet) languages:
    yes

If you answered "yes" or "undecided", for question (2), then:

3: The transformation language should be (based on):
    XSL/XQL

4: The formatting language should be (based on):
    XSL

If you answered "no", for question (2), then:

5: The combined language should be based on:
    n/a

6: Any further comments:

I think CSS is broken because it isn't XML, so ideally this
needs addressing.   That's why I would prefer an XSL formatting
language rather than just using CSS.

Is a formatting language strictly necessary in addition to transformation?  Can't 
you build the formatting into the output as part of the transformation?   What can't you do
if you drop the fo: (like Microsoft have temporarily done).    
This is not an opinion but a question - I probably don't know enough about
document stylesheets to understand why you need the formatting objects
and perhaps someone on the list can explain.

Bill Ayers (BillA@xxxxxxxxxx)


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