Re: Is letting the browser transform XML to XHTML usin

* Yeah, we did.  TransforMiiX enter the world a couple of years later.
And now there has been signicant talk of extending support for EXSLT
1.0 once it reaches final rec from the EXSLT group. *

This should have been annotated with the fact that TransforMiiX was
donated to the Mozilla foundation, from MIT (need to reverify this,
but I almost certain it was MIT).  Whether it can be said Michael
Leventhal and his crack-heads -- or something like that -- had
anything to do with this development is neither here nor there.  He
was wrong then, just as he is now.

I have plenty more fire power to bring into this if necessary.  I
sincerely hope I don't have to spend my Saturday filling XSL-List with
link after link after link with annotations backing up each claim. 
The facts are pretty straight forward as they are.

This should be more than adequate, but I am both willing, and more
than capable of taking this one as far as needs to go.

On 3/4/06, M. David Peterson <xmlhacker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> One other significant point: Google decided that the need for a
> scriptable client side XSLT processor was great enough that it became
> one of their very first contributions to their OSS efforts.  Its
> written in Javascript, yes, but this, in fact, brings even more
> credibilty toall of this as they made the decision that this was
> important enough to get into the developers hands as quickly as
> possible, that even a non-compiled language like Javascript was better
> than nothing at all.
>
> There are currently 11 OSS projects directly developed by Google.
> (this doensnt include any of the Summer of Code projects they
> sponsored).  They can be found here >
> http://code.google.com/projects.html
>
> Of these 11 projects, this is the only browser-based project that is
> not a Google specific API.
>
> - MS
> - Mozilla (see *)
> - Safari/Konqeror
> - Opera
> - Google
>
> * Anybody remember these famous last words:
> ---
> The Challenge
>
> Anything XSL can do in the Web environment, I can do better using
> technologies supported by current W3C Recommendations.
>
> Of course, what is "meaningful" in the Web environment is open to a
> variety of interpretations. Therefore, the subject of the challenge
> should be one that the XSL camp and I agree is meaningful.
>
> I am also ready to make this bet a little bit more than an academic
> exercise. If I lose, I will pledge that I, and my crack mozilla
> development team, will assist in implementing XSL in the mozilla open
> source project.
> ---
> > http://www.xml.com/pub/a/1999/05/xsl/xslconsidered_1.html <
> ---
>
> Who won that bet, anway?
>
> Yeah, we did.  TransforMiiX enter the world a couple of years later.
> And now there has been signicant talk of extending support for EXSLT
> 1.0 once it reaches final rec from the EXSLT group.
>
> Browser and Client-side XML/XSLT has gone well beyond theory, and is
> now very much a reality, and getting better each and every day.
>
> If you care about development time/time to market, cost of
> infrastructure, client-side application performance, and a cleaner,
> simpler overall design, the solution is quite clear:
>
> Client-side/Browser-based XSLT that communicates with a Server side
> preferably XSLT 2.0, XSLT processor for managing transaction requests
> from the client.  My choice (but I am no where near alone on this)
> Saxon 8.7 and beyond -- yes, there are other 2.0 engines not developed
> by Dr. Kay, and not carrying the Saxon label ... And none of them come
> close to Saxon.. I promise.)
>
> --
> <M:D/>
>
> M. David Peterson
> http://www.xsltblog.com/
>


--
<M:D/>

M. David Peterson
http://www.xsltblog.com/