Re: XSL intent survey

OK, Here are the current results. I haven't recieved any new votes the last
two days, but maybe posting this will generate some more, in which case I'll
send an update next week.

I recieved 26 full votes (including mine :-). I don't know whether this is
good or bad. Can anyone tell me how many subscribers there are to this
mailing list?

At any rate, here's a summary of the results:

1. Should the W3 organization address the issue: Y:26, N:2.
2. Separate to transformation and formatting languages: Y:17, N:7, U:2
3. If (2), the transformation language: XSL:14, XML:2, STTS3:1, DSSSL:1,
Like Omnimark:1, XQL:1
4. If (2), the formatting language: CSS:12, XSL:4, DSSSL:2
5. If not (2), the combined language: XSL:7

Here's a table of all the votes:

1: Y  2: Y  3: XSL  4: XSL/CSS  5: N/A
1: Y  2: N  3: N/A  4: N/A      5: XSL  6: DSSSL has nice features.
1: N  2: N  3: N/A  4: N/A      5: XSL  6: XSL is a done deal.
1: Y  2: Y  3: XSL  4: CSS      5: N/A  6: XML->HTML applications.
1: Y  2: N  3: N/A  4: N/A      5: XSL  6: Clarify the specs to settle this.
1: Y  2: Y  3: XSL  4: XSL      5: N/A  6: DTD->DTD applications.
1: Y  2: Y  3: XSL  4: CSS      5: N/A  6: Scripting is first priority.
1: Y  2: Y  3: XSL  4: CSS      5: N/A  6: Do it now to get browser support.
1: Y  2: N  3: N/A  4: N/A      5: XSL  6: XSL needs scripting to beat CSS.
1: Y  2: Y  3: XSL  4: CSS      5: N/A  6: Add scripting to XSL.
1: Y  2: Y  3: XSL  4: XSL/CSS  5: N/A  6: Transformation => easy styling.
1: Y  2: Y  3: XSL  4: Any      5: N/A  6: Add scripting to XSL.
1: Y  2: Y  3: XSL  4: XSL+CSS  5: N/A  6: General feedback mechanism?
1: Y  2: Y  3: Like Omnimark+DOM 4: DSSSL lite 5: N/A 6: Keep it simple.
1: Y  2: N  3: N/A  4: N/A      5: XSL  6: XSL is too weak.
1: Y  2: Y  3: XSL  4: CSS      5: N/A  6:
1: Y  2: U  3: XSL  4: CSS      5: ?    6: Strengthen transformations.
1: Y  2: Y  3: XSL  4: CSS      5: N/A  6:
1: Y  2: N  3: N/A  4: N/A      5: XSL  6:
1: Y  2: Y  3: XSL with XQL  4: XSL  5: N/A  6: CSS should use XML syntax.
1: Y  2: Y  3: STTS3/XSL  4: CSS 5: N/A 6:
1: Y  2: Y  3: XML  4: CSS in XML 5: N/A 6: XML syntax, std. query +
scripting.
1: Y  2: U  3: ?    4: DSSSL    5: ?    6:
1: Y  2: Y  3: XML  4: CSS      5: N/A  6:
1: N  2: N  3: N/A  4: N/A      5: XSL  6: Two languages within the
standard.
1: Y  2: Y  3: XSL/DSSSL 4: CSS 5: N/A  6:
1: Y
1: Y

The Original Message was:
>From: Oren Ben-Kiki <oren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: XSL list <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Thursday, November 19, 1998 15:21
>Subject: XSL intent survey
>

>As a continuation to the XSL requirements thread, and since I got a
>favorable response so far, I think we should go ahead and conduct this
>survey. The survey questions are as follows:
>
>1: I feel that the W3 organization should address the transformation vs.
>formatting issue:
>    yes/no
>
>2: We need separate transformation and formatting (style sheet) languages:
>    yes/no/undecided
>
>If you answered "yes" or "undecided", for question (2), then:
>
>3: The transformation language should be (based on):
>    XSL/CSS/JavaScript/Perl/Other:...
>
>Note: XSL here stands for the transformation part of the current draft; CSS
>refers to proposals to extend CSS to do transformations, with a removal of
>the formatting specific features.
>
>4: The formatting language should be (based on):
>    XSL/CSS/Other:...
>
>Note: XSL here stands for the formatting part of the current draft; CSS
>refers to the current state of affairs.
>
>If you answered "no", for question (2), then:
>
>5: The combined language should be based on:
>    XSL/CSS/Other:...
>
>Note: XSL refers to XSL as it stands today; CSS refers to proposals to
>extend CSS to include transformations.
>
>Finally:
>
>6: Any further comments:
>...
>
>Notes:
>
>To vote, just forward this message to xsl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx and replace the
line
>following each question (currently listing alternatives) with your answer.
>
>Names and addresses of voters would be kept on my host just to prevent
>double votes and allow updates - a second vote would override the previous
>one. I don't think posting the names and addresses would serve any purpose
>other then giving spammers a convenient list :-)
>
>I'll post intermediate results in a week and final results in two weeks.
I'd
>appreciate a reference to the "right" address in the W3 organization to
>forward the final results to.




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