Re: XSL and HTML

[Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx]
> We seem to be into the realms of language purity, purity of intent
> etc., etc.
> 
> God forbid that a Web designer/developer should have their needs met
> by XSL (delivering to HTML/javaScript... ohh you naive fool :), what
> matters is the purity of the language, or some abstract notion
> thereof.

I find this point of view a little unfocused.

Purity of language is not a goal, it is a tool.  A cluttered language
is harder to learn and harder to implement; a language that is
unusable (for want of implementations) or unused (for want of
understanding) may as well not be designed at all.

SGML is hard to learn and implement.  XML was designed with purity in
mind, and rapidly surpassed SGML in numbers of implementations and
users.  If XSL can remain clean (which is very difficult given the
scope of its goal), it will be easier to implement and use, and more
valuable to everyone (meaning you, the Web designer/developer).  A
*lot* of time is spent in WG meetings discussing which syntax is more
intuitive, more obvious, cleaner, more implementable, more usable.
User comments are the primary ammunition in these debates, since
everything else is speculation.  Your comments do not go unnoticed.

I also wish the W3C process were more open.  But if the cost of
getting the 800-pound gorillas on board is a certain amount of
secrecy, I'll take that over whistling in the wind as the IETF HTML
effort (of which I was also part) seemed to be doing.

-Chris
-- 
<!NOTATION SGML.Geek PUBLIC "-//Anonymous//NOTATION SGML Geek//EN">
<!ENTITY crism PUBLIC "-//O'Reilly//NONSGML Christopher R. Maden//EN"
"<URL>http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/crism/ <TEL>+1.617.499.7487
<USMAIL>90 Sherman Street, Cambridge, MA 02140 USA" NDATA SGML.Geek>


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