Re: Venting

Thu, 04 Feb 1999 11:25:18, Paul Prescod writes:
 But there will always be transforming parsers because *they are useful*.

The point appears to be that the transformation language is useful in and of
itself, and therefore, we should consider the wisdom of separating it form
the formating specification.  The implication here is that the XSL working
group HAS DONE SUCH A GOOD JOB at creating a transformation language
(required for styling) that it has uses beyond its original intent.  This is
a good thing, not a bad thing.

Would anyone argue that Calculus should be taught and used only with
Physics?  Are transistors only to be used with telecommunications?  Should
the wheel only be used with farm equipment?  XSL's transformation language
may not be in the same league as these other inventions (some on this list
may argue that point), but the analogy holds.

For a growing number of people, the technology has transcended itself and a
call has gone out to consider separation.  This does not mean that the
formating specification should not refer to or use the transformation
language.  Rather that the goals of those driving the formating language and
the goals of those calling for a transformation language have diverged.

Sincerely,

Andy Philips
Oracle Corporation

My opinions may not represent those of my employer.




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