RE: Non-XML XSL output

To Simon 

All of this is great, and highly useful, but 

>> progress has been made?

in the context of 'full' XSL,
and not just the tree-construction part.  What I find difficult to accept
is that a tool which purports only to handle the transformation end is
outputting stuff that ain't XML, 

>> but you sited text from the spec that tries deal with this?

especially given the context of the
discussions on this list and section 2.5 (<<) 

>>XSL don't exist yet. The discussion is...a discussion.

If I started outputting troff files directly without concern for formatting
objects, I think there'd be a sudden round of griping.

>>I wonder. Perhaps the first reaction would be "curiosity". 

>>What is the operative, qualitative, quantitative difference here? Where does 'markup' begin and ... the unspeakable (proprietary)... end? Whose definition of a character set rules? This is an 'ancient' question, perhaps? And the ongoing war?

It seems as if we're sticking back-end processors on XSL here that have
behaviors not defined by the specification but without acknowledging that
fact.  

>> Isn't that the whole point?

Supporting old-style SGML-valid HTML is pretty much a waste of time
in my book - 99.5% of HTML authors never gave a damn about SGML validity,

>> never even knew about, understood, cared about or tried 'vailidity'?

though with luck, some of them may find XML validity more interesting.

>> may have twigged to the fact that there is a 'problem here...somewhere'?

(I'm striving to make my site well-formed XML, not valid HTML.  Browsers
don't mind, not at all.)

>> ... yes? -- What was optional becomes required. --   A kind of mantra of unification... standardization? At least from the HTML point of view?

If we're going to operate this way, it's fine with me - just drop all the
"we're only generating XML" rhetoric and make XSL a more generally usable
tool.  

>> what rhetoric? Eye of the beholder? Finally, the agenda. What is it?

If 'worse is better' is genuinely the game plan, lets figure out
which worse we're implementing and do it right.

>> more agenda? frankly, this doesn't make any sense. Are you talking about what amounts to editing or word smithing issues in the standard? If so. It's in draft. We all have a more than passing acquaintance with the language. Let's help out.

Simon St.Laurent

	...edN

<<application/ms-tnef>>