Lists Home |
Date Index |
At 10:37 09/07/2003 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>I don't consider XSLT a stylesheet. XSL-FO is a stylesheet.
>The semantics of style are conflated with transformation and
>that is a heritage issue from DSSSL. Spilt milk. I didn't
>like it then either. Hyperlinks were dragged into it too.
>It would be fun to wind back the clock and see if James et al
>would have done the work they did had they been told that
>transformation but not formatting objects were wanted. However,
>they separated these into XSLT and XSL-FO and that should
>be sufficient. Confusion of users may be epidemic and in
>some individual cases, political, but show me an application
>language without politics and I'll show you a dead language.
Right again Len IMHO.
Once James et al were hit by the clamour for generating HTML
from XML, and split it out, the die was cast.
Confusion reigned thereafter, and I guess Simon is right
in terms of the politics.
I see XSLT as the transform bit, with the split to
either xsl-fo for print or css for html formatting = making it look good
for media X.
I'm pleasantly surprised that the WG accepted the split based on user demand.
NIH seems not to have come into it.