RE: XML Transformation Language (was Re: removing HTML flow

I worry that XSL will "define by implication" an XML transformation
facility.

I believe that a transformation facility will be mandatory for *any*
utility that operates on generic XML.  Just as HTML is an instance of an
SGML grammar, XSL is an instance of a generic XML processor.

Whether they intend to or not, the XSL WG will be defining a
transformation facility to transform a generic XML document.  It will be
the de facto standard that all other generic XML processors will end up
conforming to.  I'd like to see someone take the time to think through
and define what features should be in a generic XML processor before
they run off and design a specific instance of one.

Rob


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Murray-Rust [mailto:peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, May 25, 1998 5:31 AM
To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: XML Transformation Language (was Re: removing HTML flow
objects?)


At 10:48 22/05/98 -0400, David Megginson wrote:
[...]

>There is room for a simple XML Transformation Language (XTL) sharing
>much of the structure and syntax of XSL -- you could use XTL to create
>XML, HTML, or even generalised SGML output.

I would support this - my early excursions into SGML used the CoST tool
which allowed transformation on the ESIS stream. I believe that it was
consciously decided that XSL should not be a transformation language.
This
leaves a big gap for those of who are more concerned with processing
content rather than rendering. Both are important, but the current XSL
requirements are increasingly related to precision and flexibility of
rendering.

	P.

Peter Murray-Rust, Director Virtual School of Molecular Sciences,
domestic
net connection
VSMS http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/vsms, Virtual Hyperglossary
http://www.venus.co.uk/vhg


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


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