[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: W3C-transformation language petition
Hi. Paul. Probably wise of you to draw a halt to this thread as it just risks becomming entrenched. I wont address you very worthy arguement directly here as it's unfare to throw an arguement at somebody they aren't going to readdress. I have addressed the issue in part in a reply to one of Oren's posts if you're interested. At the end of the day I think debate on this matter probably accademic as I feel before long the XSL WG likely to follow a path similar to the one you suggest and split the current draft into two Recs. Whether the tranformative part of this then gets subsumed by XQL, or indeed gets split further into an XQL pattern matching syntax and an XTL construction description remains to be seen. Cheers Guy. xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 03/03/99 11:41:03 AM To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cc: (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID) Subject: Re: W3C-transformation language petition As my last post on this subject let me say that standards creation is software engineering. A central principle of software engineering is that functionality that can be independently reused should be factored out so that independent reuse is possible. This factoring is the foundational of all robust information systems. The arguments against this factoring that I have heard here and elsewhere are not technical: they are political. You are the one playing "marketing games." >I continue to maintian that styling *is* transformation and > formatting, and that the two parts are therefore requesite for a > styling language Nobody claims otherwise. But the transformative part is independently useful and should thus be factored. > And if you want an XTL or whatever all power to you, but > please, do you have to insist on doing it by stepping on the head of XSL? The alternative is to *duplicate* the features of the transformative part of XSL. That is poor software engineering and poor standards creation. > Isogens, or Activateds or ISOGEN does not make parsers. ISOGEN does not market XSL. ISOGEN builds information systems based on industry standards. Our customers need an XSL-like transformation language. The choices for creating one are factoring or duplication. One is good standards engineering practice. The other is not. It is not a tough choice. > whoevers parser can claim to support FOs in as > far as they can be produced from the parser, not being a user agent there > can be no expectation that the parser actually render the FOs ::shrug:: > seems to make the above two points obsolete. You are out of sync with the XML specification: "When the result tree uses the formatting vocabulary, a conforming XSL implementation must be able to interpret the result tree according to the semantics of the formatting vocabulary as defined in this document; it may also be able to externalize the result tree as XML, but it is not required to be able to do so." Merely outputting the XML objects is not "interpreting" them. It is pretty clear by now that you are willing to let your love of XSL drive everything even if it leads to poor standards engineering in the rest of the W3C family of standards. I think that the working group will be more far-sighted. -- Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco "The Excursion [Sport Utility Vehicle] is so large that it will come equipped with adjustable pedals to fit smaller drivers and sensor devices that warn the driver when he or she is about to back into a Toyota or some other object." -- Dallas Morning News XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|