Re: why split? [was RE: XSL intent survey]

Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>... So we'd have transformative declarative syntax, with optional flow
objects,
>and optional scripting. To my mind (and I realise
>everybody has their own biased interests) this would be an appropriate
>order for prioritising consideration.


This is fine, except it places the transformation issues "before" the
formatting. This whole thing started when it was pointed out that the
transformation issues were secondary - if you go by the original intent. You
get a different language if you want a "transformation language with
optional formatting" or a "formatting language with some transformations".
This isn't just playing with words - each part requires a lot of effort to
do well, and there's only so much to go around. There are also downright
conflicts - with regard to the language complexity and intended audience,
for example.

Have fun,

    Oren Ben-Kiki


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