Subject: RE: Style vs. transformation From: Tony Stewart <tony.stewart@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 14:39:03 -0000 |
Frank Boumphrey wrote: "No, but isn't XSL meant to be for the HTML crowd, 98% of whom know something about Javascript, and 1% of whom know about Python? "My understanding is that XSL was implemented because DSSSL-0 was too complicated for the average web author." I think of XSL as that set of styling capabilities that we can reasonably expect industry-standard browsers to support natively in a year or two. Thus, the discussion aims to find the right match between power and practical implementability - small footprint, platform independence, etc. So it's not just a question of what the author can write; it's also a question of what the browser vendors can reasonably be expected to implement. While most people writing XSL will probably target HTML output, those of us writing for intranets have a lot of other options and outputs in mind. And over time, some subset of those other options will become generally available over the Internet too. Tony Stewart RivCom "Publishing Structured Information" www.rivcom.com XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: Style vs. Transformation, Tony Stewart | Thread | RE: Style vs. transformation, Rob McDougall |
RE: Style vs. Transformation, Tony Stewart | Date | RE: Style vs. transformation, Rob McDougall |
Month |