Subject: Re: Venting
From: Francois Belanger <francois@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 99 09:45:22 -0500
|
Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on 04/02/99 08h36:
>I don't think such a change in charter could be implimented without
>seriously pushing back the delivery of the final Rec.... how popular might
>a move such as this be?
Au contraire! separating the two components would probably mean the
selection part of XSL would be completed much faster as it would not have
to wait for the FO to be defined and put to task. As the selection part
is being used and tested everyday by member of this group among others,
it's getting fast near completion IMHO.
One *big* gain of separating the two components of XSL is to make it
possible for other formatting languages such as CSS to evolve into
formatting objects for XSL selection model, CSS authors have already
proposed that.
I personnaly find utopious to think one formatting language will solve
all layout problems: it just won't happen for historical (no support for
older browsers), syntaxical (FO would be so complicated and not
comprehensible for most designers, the real end users of FOs) and
practical reasons (we will face *a lot* of resistance in forcing yet
another styling language in order to use XSL selection language).
The "just ignore the FO portion of the spec" attitude is short-term
minded and will cause a lot of problems, similar to those we have today
with HTML.
W3C: split XSL, ASAP.
Francois Belanger
Sitepak, Bringing Internet Business into Focus
http://www.sitepak.com
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
| Current Thread |
- Re: Venting, (continued)
- Ed Nixon - Thu, 4 Feb 1999 08:20:25 -0500
- Guy_Murphy - Thu, 4 Feb 1999 13:36:30 +0000
- Francois Belanger - Thu, 4 Feb 99 09:45:22 -0500 <=
- Guy_Murphy - Thu, 4 Feb 1999 15:00:09 +0000
|
|