why split? [was RE: XSL intent survey]

> that
> doesn't seem a good reason to remove the formatiing from the
> transformation language so that you have to invent a fake `unformatted
> output' DTD into which you can transform your XML just so you can then
> apply a `simple' formatting language to typeset it.

I think we're approaching the issue from different angles.  Transforming to
formatted output is merely one of many tranformations.  In a generic
XML-to-XML transformation, there's no such thing as "removing" the
formatting -- there is no formatting.  (Think e-commerce or interapplication
communication or any other sort of data exchange.)

And, there are many ways to describe a formatted document -- TeXML among
them.

All I (and some others) are saying is that the two problems are distinct
enough that they are best solved separately.


>I want to get TeX quality typesetting out of
> the formatting/transformation language (probably in the short term by
> using TeX as a back end). If you are used to using TeX, dsssl 
> is already 
> a strictly limited system, and XSL more so.

I actually think this is a strong argument *for* splitting the problem.  Let
the formatting folks create a simple/elegant/powerful XML syntax for
describing documents -- without worrying about how people are going to
create that syntax.  Let the transformation folks create a
simple/elegant/powerful XML syntax for transforming any XML document into
any other XML document -- without being distracted by formatting issues.

Of course, non-trivial formatting tasks will require that you use both, but
they're still designed better in (relative) isolation.

Hope that helps clarify,

Scott


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