In favor of separating transformation and presentation tools

I would also favor separate tools for transformation and presentation
formatting.

There will likely be many variations that overlap these areas to differing
degrees, just as there is a spectrum of users and their needs for each. But
my experience has been that where a tool bridges too many conceptual uses it
suffers in several ways, especially while folks are figuring out how to use
it and what to use it for. Remember that a lot of the people outside this
list are still struggling to figure out how to combine the results of SQL
database queries with HTML. Look at a page of ASP or CFML code and you'll
see what I mean. These people are ultimately going to be the mass adopters
and users of XML+XSL+CSS etc.

I would also argue that one of the sweetest points of working with XML seems
to be the way it eases flow of data between processes or components of a
larger system. I find it helpful while working through these new ideas to be
able to see the transformations discretely, and the presentation as a final
step. This also fits in with the demands of emerging electronic publishing
processes where content comes in from multiple sources, may go through some
generic transformations into a repository, then some specific
transformations to suit a particular profile, and then thorugh a set of
final transformations or presentation to a particular output
platform/device.

Gimme some happy little components that I can watch and tune, and I'll build
the next generation. Give me something big and hairy and I'm going to be
struggling with it geometrically.

_______________________________________________
Daniel Seltzer
Arcus Incorporated
212-501-8122
dseltzer@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.arcus.net


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