Subject: Re: Venting From: Keith Visco <kvisco@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:26:40 -0500 |
Guy, I'm not suggesting abandoning or "pulling" anything from the XSL standard. I think it would help XSL by allowing some people to focus on one part and others to focus on another. Assuming that you are a programmer you know that splitting a task into smaller sub-tasks helps to accomplish the overall goal. I don't think any of us are suggesting to get rid of FOs. I also understand that the FO portion of the XSL WD is rather incomplete, and that eventually as it nears completion more software supporting FO's will be available. --Keith Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > Hi Keith. > > Yes he does make a very strong point with that. > > I would suggest however that it is early days for XSL, and as the > transformative part of XSL is easiest to impliment it was bound to be the > first. > > The arguement you're persuing is a bit like saying well none of the browser > manufacturers impliment that bit of HTML so maybe we should just pull it > from the standard. > > I might point out that neither of the main browsers support CSS2, but that > doesn't stop it from being a good and valid standard. It might be some time > before they do fully comply to CSS2, but the fact that it's there means > that preasure can be brought to bear on them to gradualy comply over time. > The arguement that suggests that because the standard isn't impliments, it > should be hacked up is a dangerous one for standards, especially when the > standard isn't even out the door. > > There's now way that MS or NS will impliment XSL FOs until the standard is > out the door and written in stone, and nobody envisaged that they would. > > To be frank, before the standard is ratified to say it's not implimented so > we should drop it, is a little rediculous. > > Cheers > Guy. > > xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 02/09/99 10:27:14 PM > > To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > cc: (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID) > Subject: 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 > > XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Venting, Guy_Murphy | Thread | Re: Venting, keshlam |
Re: Venting, Guy_Murphy | Date | Re: Venting, keshlam |
Month |