[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Mike Champion <mc@xegesis.org> writes:
> 4/24/2002 6:07:49 PM, "Evan Lenz" <evan@evanlenz.net> wrote:
>
>
> >Are you referring to XML 1.0? I always considered it to be a good de jure
> >codification of de facto best practices in (i.e. most common subset of)
> >SGML. In that sense, Michael's characterization seems better than "real new
> >science", let alone a joke...
>
> That's exactly the way I view the history, hence my post.
>
> XSLT is another interesting case ... one could hypothesize that its
> success stems in part from the fact that it is "a DSSSL subset with
> angle brackets" (at least that's how it was explained to me in about
> 1998)
The whole discussion reminds me of the famous "Once we understand how
to solve an Artificial Intelligence problem, it ceases to be AI
anymore and becomes Computer Science" observation.
I agree that XSLT is indeed a relevant case, but not surprisingly I
see it as another case of successful innovation, not just careful
synthesis of existing practice. I would offer the iconic approach to
template rules, the XPath abstract _and_ concrete syntax and the use
of 'pull'-style result construction (e.g. xsl:for-each) as examples of
the kind of innovation which have been constitutive of XSLT's success.
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
W3C Fellow 1999--2002, part-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
|
