RE: Why transformation?

Here's a basic answer that reflects my basic understanding:

* XSL currently can 'down-transform' XML into HTML a practical necessity given 
current browser capabilities if one is working with XML (or interoperably 
structured SGML) documents.
* XSL as a styling mechanism, to the best of my knowledge, has not yet been 
implemented; therefore CSS is the style definition and rendition method of 
choice.
* XSL has selection, filtering and reordering capabilities that allow different 
'views' or differently 'purposed' versions of information to be generated from 
the same base document.

These are off the top of my head. I'd be interested in others' list items. 
               Regards.             ...edN


On Wednesday, September 30, 1998 1:59 PM, Simon St.Laurent 
[SMTP:simonstl@xxxxxxxxxxxx] wrote:
> This is a fairly basic question, I realize - but why is transformation
> needed in a style language?  I'm having a damn hard time coming up with
> good reasons why transformation and formatting actually belong together,
> and can't find good reasons to push XSL over CSS for about 90% of the
> applications I can envision.
>
> Is there a good reason for this, or is it just that XSL has transformations
> because DSSSL did?  There must be something more to it than the comfort
> level of those used to working with SGML tools, but so far, I haven't heard
> much exciting.
>
> Where does XSL fit in an XML application architecture?
> Why is this more more useful than CSS?
> What is the value of conflating style and transformation?
>
> Thanks.  I'm attempting to write an overview chapter on styles, and can't
> find any great reasons to tell people to use XSL.
>
> Simon St.Laurent
> Dynamic HTML: A Primer / XML: A Primer
> Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth (November)
> Building XML Applications (December)
> http://www.simonstl.com
>
>
>  XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list


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