[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Stepping back, part two...

Subject: RE: Stepping back, part two...
From: Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 16:01:01 +0000
back part
Hi Dave.

I think you're commenting on the crux of the matter, that there's preasure
upon XSL to fulfill both
needs.

Giving voice to an admittedly childish, emotive response (that I would
never be so rude as to predujice somebody actively with),
I feel XSL is geting bent out of shape in order to appease those wishing it
to facilitate print. The childish repsonse to this
is "You've got you're tools, now let me get mine". Print has SGML and
DSSSL, and I sort of see XML and XSL as the Web equivelant.
I think somehow, as a Web designer I feel that my tools are being hijacked
by print considerations.

To be honest I prefer the MS implimentation over the current WD, but it's
no real biggy, I'm quite happy with where XSL is at... I just want ot see
it done and out there.

As to whether there is a conflict between the print and screen camps... Yes
I think there is. Web sites are not printed publications, and the interests
of Web designers are not those of print designers (and visa versa). I think
XSL needs to get in foucs exactly which camp it's catering to, otherwise
there's the risk that both camps will end up with a sour taste. I had
thought that XSL was catering to Web based technology, primarily
browser/screen. If that's the case I would say XSL is almost good to go...
it should be roled out ASAP, and then start on v2.

I don't advocate spliting the language up, I am in favour as you comment
upon, the possible layering of the language, into transformation, format
objects, and scripting... and I think that if this approach where take, the
transformative part could go out very soon, with the formatting part
following at a later date.

For XML to succeed, at present we have to be able to get from XML to HTML,
and XSL transformations would be the easiest way to do that. CSS wont cut
it as XML data is normaly abstracted not just from styling, but also page
structure (a point I think many XML/CSS advocates forget). You need XSL in
order to create the page structure(s).

Those that advocate such transformation through script/DOM or similar are
advocating a broken paradigm, or certainly a less ideal one. Certainly from
my own area of experience largely with intranets, XML/script/DOM doesn't
present enough compeling reasons to move from existing delivery mechanisms.
Yeah it would be nice, but is it worth the effort? Probably in the long
run, but certainly not something to throw our whole weight behind. The XML
enthusiast will advocate it but the far larger number of sceptics looking
to see if XML is just the latest hype might well oppose.

If W3C members are reading... please get it done. XSL isn't exactly rocket
science, what is it around 20 elements, and some rudimentry syntax? Ask
yourself if in your own business you could jusify taking more than another
month from the point at which XSL is currently at. And the recent estimates
are I believe August next year for XSL completion. Maybe I'm naive, or
missing some fundimentals of the W3C working process, all I know is if I
had a three man team with XSL at it's current stage, and tried telling my
boss it would be August next year before we decided what the final language
was, I'd get the sack. If I had industry support on the scale of W3C, with
some of the worlds greatest minds in the area working on the problem, and
estimated August next year for a language the size of XSL, my boss would
probably just [expletive deleted] himself laughing.

Wow, I'm straying miles from the point now, so once again I'll shut-up.

Cheers
     Guy.





xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 11/27/98 07:08:18 PM

To:   xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc:    (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID)
Subject:  RE: Stepping back, part two...





Brandon & Scott wrote:
 By "layering" the technologies, you allow
the gods to build the tools that allow the guys in the middle to
assemble easy to use facilities for the users.
Very nice idea. Mix and match using your own abilities,
and re-using the expertise of those with higher abilities.
Minor step-back.
a perspective difference is often found to underly many of the
threads here, that of target output media. Those targetting web
publication vs those targetting paper.
Is there a conflict here? Or would such an approach accomodate
both camps? There are many shared expectations and processes, and then
those
which seem to have quite different ones.
DSSSL has no problems meeting the needs of both camps, are we expecting
the same for XSL?

DaveP



<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.0.1460.9">
<TITLE>RE: Stepping back, part two...</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Brandon &amp; Scott wrote:</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>&nbsp;By &quot;layering&quot; the technologies, you
allow</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the gods to build the tools that allow the guys in the
middle
to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>assemble easy to use facilities for the users.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Very nice idea. Mix and match using your own
abilities,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>and re-using the expertise of those with higher
abilities.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Minor step-back.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>a perspective difference is often found to underly many of
the
</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>threads here, that of target output media. Those
targetting
web</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>publication vs those targetting paper.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Is there a conflict here? Or would such an approach
accomodate</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>both camps? There are many shared expectations and
processes,
and then those</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>which seem to have quite different ones.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>DSSSL has no problems meeting the needs of both camps, are
we
expecting</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the same for XSL?</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>DaveP</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>






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


Current Thread

PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!

Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.