Re: Venting

Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> ... and which I was addressing, was the difficulties in explaining XSL as
> it is currently being implimented. The point to stress here is *currently
> being implimented*...This isn't a fundemental flaw in the language but
> instead difficulties in dealing with the languages development.

Guy, you seem to respond without reading what anyone else writes. This has
been covered already. 

>From now until the end of time there will be ten XSL transformation
implementations for every browser/wordprocessor/viewer. XSL transformation
is useful for e-commerce, EDI, remote procedure calling, DTD migration and
a hundred other things that have nothing to do with style or viewing.

> When FOs are supported by browsers I think the above broblem that you
> expressed will be alot easier to address.

No it will not. If you read the paragraph I wrote you will find that it is
about an application of XSL that has NOTHING TO DO WITH BROWSERS.

> Concerning the current draft in relation to the above... imagine the FOs
> where currently supported by the browser, but we didn't have transforming
> parsers.... it would most definately be considered a style language. 

But there will always be transforming parsers because *they are useful*.
XSL transformations will probably be the backbone of a billion dollar
e-commerce industry within 3 years. We might as well make that use *legal*
and make processors that permit that billion dollar industry legal also.
We also might as well give the language that is powering the billion
dollar industry a *name*.

 Paul Prescod  - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself
 http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco

"Remember, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did,
but she did it backwards and in high heels."
                                               --Faith Whittlesey


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