Re: Venting

Guy,

Paul makes an excellent point since most of the XSL processors only
implement the "XTL" or tree construction portion of the XSL WD anyway. I
am in favor of splitting the the spec or at least having a further
clarified specification that treats the transformation and formatting as
two separate entities.

Most of the implementors of the XSL processors apparently have felt this
way from the start in my opinion since some are working on the
Transformation process and others are working on the "FO" section. 

--Keith

Paul Prescod wrote:
> 
> Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > Hi.
> >
> > Yes I would rather see 100 XTL languages rather than see XSL sullied.
> 
> Sullied is a pretty vague word. Most of us in favor of separating out the
> transformation language believe that the XSL style language would be
> stronger after that change.
> 
> > If you want to discuss the future of XTL, please go form an XTL mailing
> > list.
> 
> The XSL transformation langauge is currently a part of the XSL
> specification. This is the most appropriate place to discuss it unless
> that changes.
> 
> I would venture that far and away most of the people in this fora are
> using the transformation language without the formatting objects. Would
> you really like all of them to "go away?"
> 
> --
>  Paul Prescod  - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself
>  http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco
> 
> "Remember, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did,
> but she did it backwards and in high heels."
>                                                --Faith Whittlesey
> 
>  XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list


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