why split? [was RE: XSL intent survey]
> that > doesn't seem a good reason to remove the formatiing from the > transformation language so that you have to invent a fake `unformatted > output' DTD into which you can transform your XML just so you can then > apply a `simple' formatting language to typeset it. I think we're approaching the issue from different angles. Transforming to formatted output is merely one of many tranformations. In a generic XML-to-XML transformation, there's no such thing as "removing" the formatting -- there is no formatting. (Think e-commerce or interapplication communication or any other sort of data exchange.) And, there are many ways to describe a formatted document -- TeXML among them. All I (and some others) are saying is that the two problems are distinct enough that they are best solved separately. >I want to get TeX quality typesetting out of > the formatting/transformation language (probably in the short term by > using TeX as a back end). If you are used to using TeX, dsssl > is already > a strictly limited system, and XSL more so. I actually think this is a strong argument *for* splitting the problem. Let the formatting folks create a simple/elegant/powerful XML syntax for describing documents -- without worrying about how people are going to create that syntax. Let the transformation folks create a simple/elegant/powerful XML syntax for transforming any XML document into any other XML document -- without being distracted by formatting issues. Of course, non-trivial formatting tasks will require that you use both, but they're still designed better in (relative) isolation. Hope that helps clarify, Scott XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format