OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] Partyin' like it's 1999

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

And XBL is YetOneMoreThingToLearn.  It doesn't look 
hard, but the aggregation of all the small pieces 
increases the surface area enormously for an author. 
However one looks at the Microsoft approach, it is 
very easy to learn and apply.

It's weird how much fuss gets raised over the 
WS-* specs, size, and complexity, but turn that 
lens on other communities and there is a silent 
acquiescence to the ever growing numbers of 
languages to be supported.   So faced with that, 
proprietary is not only acceptable, it can be 


From: David Carlisle [mailto:davidc@nag.co.uk]

> It doesn't need to scale to more than the number of languages that have 
> their own specific rendering needs that can't be expressed on top of 
> another language.

yes and no, you can rely on a transformation language xslt (or xbl about
which I know less) for rendering but the more you transform, the harder
time you have with any interaction as you have to do the reverse
transform (typically) to map user interaction with the layout pimitives
back to your underlying elements.

The amount of transformation that you are prepared to accept as
reaonable is of course subjective. So opinions will differ as to whether
such a solution is acceptable. Is it OK to map ChemML (or MathML) to SVG
for example, given that SVG can lay text at specific coordinates pretty
much any layout form could in principle be rendered that way but you
might (or might not) lose something along the way.


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS