Re: Stepping back, part two...

Hi Sebastian.

I have several reason for drawing the distinction, many of which are the
selfish bias of a Web designer.

I don't like conflict, but I do believe in the importance of frank, open
debate.

In answer to your last question, I think that XML is primarily for the Web,
and I feel that the Web is primarily
a screen based medium. I've already ranted plenty on what I think the
result of this should be, so will avoid repeating myself.

What I will add by way of suggested consideration for those concerned that
print not get neglected...

What about speech?

Speech is also covered by the remit of a style language according to the
W3C. I also believe that within 18 months, text-to-speach conversion
of Web content will be of greater interest to the average Web user than
print. It is also more important to the W3Cs accessibility
goals than print, making the Web more available to blind people.

So rather than push out an XSL 1.0, and worry about what we can add in XSL
1.5 or 2.0, I suggest the W3C gets bogged down in how
XSL can best syntactically represent phonemes and intonation... yes I am
being facetious... but that might be because my company wants to move to
XML now, and as the implimentor I really don't want to have to develop
complex applications parsing the XML DOM :)

So if I appear a little impassioned in some of my posts it's because I feel
impassioned by XSL... I want XSL... And I want to now, not next August.

As a last note, I do understand your concern with "ghettos", and the
possibility of an ensuing battle over differing XSL interests. I don't
however feel that XSL will succeed as a language if it seeks to cater to
all interests. So my ghettoised viewpoint is
XML/XSL/Web/Screen/v1.0/March99 ...we can worry about adding the gloss
after.

Cheers
     Guy





xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 11/30/98 08:58:32 PM

To:   xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc:    (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID)
Subject:  Re: Stepping back, part two...




Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
 > It comes as a great suprise to me that XSL is a print and not Web driven
 > style language, and if this is the W3Cs stated intent, they'd do well to
 > let the Web development community know.
 >
I am very puzzled as to why you want to make this distinction. we have
quite enough ghettos already without "Web vs print" becoming a
battle. do you *like* conflict? XSL is a style language for XML, isnt
it? what more do you need to say? do you think XML's only is for the Web?
Sebastian Rahtz

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






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