RE: Practical XSL

Hi.

I have to lend support to this view-point.

At present we're migrating a large intranet application for a massive
categorised delivery of content. Previously we where using proprietyr
data-modeling and mark-up of renderable result was via ASP.

With XML/XSL, we are moving toward a unified data model, and have a small
handful of stylesheets that are far easier to maintain and change than ASP.
We can now deploy tailored solutions to any given browser easily without
impacting data delivery.

Even if we had a large collection of style-sheets, they would be easier to
batch process to pull them into conformance with future changes than
server-side script, and at the end of the day as we're doing the
transformation of the server-side, it's our choice as to what parser we
have registered, and we can move to newer incarnations of the parser at our
leasure.

We can already start reaping the benefits of XSL, and as XSL matures it can
only get better. With large scale development there are always new issues
to adapt to, adaptig to these issues with XSL is IMHO alot easier.

As for dangers around an MS-centric approach... there are dangers to the
industry at large, but I don't necessarly atomaticaly identify with those
dangers. I'm ceertainly looking at a very MS orientated development here
serving off NT boxes with IIS and ASP server-side scripting delivering to a
prefered browser of IE4 (well ideally IE5, but we can't really ask that of
ppl yet :). Our DB isn't MS (it's ObjectStore), but just about everything
else is. I would like to see more copetition in the market-place, but
that's just it.... competition. If NS provide a viable integrated solution
that betters the MS one, then I'll look at it.

Cheers
     Guy.





xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 02/19/99 02:05:51 AM

To:   xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc:    (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID)
Subject:  RE: Practical XSL




Paul Prescod wrote:
> "Livingstone, Stephen" wrote:
> > Is anyone doing anything serious with XSL yet? If not (for those who
> > decide these things) when is it likely that we shall be
> able to reliably
> > use XSL?
>
> It will be safest to use XSL seriously when it becomes a W3C
> recommendation.
Don't agree!
I replied privately to Stephen with mention of a site that we are about
to launch which is an online magazine. Within it there are hundreds of
articles and a database full of information on companies, countries,
people, events and so on. All are cross-referenced with XLink-type
relationships, and then XSL is used to produce HTML for the layout and
in particular the 'real' links needed.
Now, if XSL changes next week, we have about eight (that's eight)
stylesheets to change. Might take a few hours, and then it's off down to
the pub. Even if certain concepts change I can't see us being
inconvenienced more than a few days. When the IE4 to IE5 changes
happened it took us an afternoon.
And if you have a hundred stylesheets - and I would be surprised if
anyone has yet, given the early stages we are at - then you can devise a
stylesheet to transform them anyway.
BUT ...
Imagine NOT using XSL. We would have implemented a boring old,
traditional solution to the web site. We would not have been able to
deliver the richness of cross-referencing that we have, and if we did it
would be pretty much impossible to maintain. And THEN when XSL had
settled we'd have to start the conversion process, and therefore be a
generation of technology behind.
I say give it a go! You have nothing to lose, and I can assure you that
most problems to do with performance can be 'worked round' for now,
until the next generation comes along. It's really not as difficult as
people are making out.
Regards,
Mark

Mark Birbeck
Managing Director
Intra Extra Digital Ltd.
39 Whitfield Street
London
W1P 5RE
w: http://www.iedigital.net/
t: 0171 681 4135
e: Mark.Birbeck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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






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