Re: Leventhal's challenge misses the point

Miles Sabin wrote:

> 
> XML/XSL is a model-view type architecture. MV is good at
> breaking the dependency of data-models on presentation
> issues. Unfortunately it's very poor at separating
> presentation issues from the data model. That territory
> is handled quite nicely by the model-view-controller
> architecture: a data-model, a presentation model, and
> something which coordinates between the two.
> 
> Translating that into the XML space we'd have something
> like: an XML data model (as now), an XML presentation
> model (maybe a skeletal FO document), and something that
> binds the two together (effectively an imperative
> script). Application programmers would focus on the
> data-model; designers would focus on the presentation
> model (supported by visual tools); and the glue would be
> done by a completely separate group ... perhaps they'd
> have to be programmer-designers, perhaps just
> programmers. Anyhow the upshot would be a clean
> separation of concerns and skill-sets.

What about XML as the model, FO as view and XSLT as controler? I guess
we can't use that though as it's the same as using XML/XSL ;-)

Fredrik Lindgren
Upright Engineering AB


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