Guy,

  I'm not suggesting abandoning or "pulling" anything from the XSL
standard. I think it would help XSL by allowing some people to focus on
one part and others to focus on another. Assuming that you are a
programmer you know that splitting a task into smaller sub-tasks helps
to accomplish the overall goal. I don't think any of us are suggesting
to get rid of FOs. I also understand that the FO portion of the XSL WD
is rather incomplete, and that eventually as it nears completion more
software supporting FO's will be available.

--Keith

Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> Hi Keith.
> 
> Yes he does make a very strong point with that.
> 
> I would suggest however that it is early days for XSL, and as the
> transformative part of XSL is easiest to impliment it was bound to be the
> first.
> 
> The arguement you're persuing is a bit like saying well none of the browser
> manufacturers impliment that bit of HTML so maybe we should just pull it
> from the standard.
> 
> I might point out that neither of the main browsers support CSS2, but that
> doesn't stop it from being a good and valid standard. It might be some time
> before they do fully comply to CSS2, but the fact that it's there means
> that preasure can be brought to bear on them to gradualy comply over time.
> The arguement that suggests that because the standard isn't impliments, it
> should be hacked up is a dangerous one for standards, especially when the
> standard isn't even out the door.
> 
> There's now way that MS or NS will impliment XSL FOs until the standard is
> out the door and written in stone, and nobody envisaged that they would.
> 
> To be frank, before the standard is ratified to say it's not implimented so
> we should drop it, is a little rediculous.
> 
> Cheers
>      Guy.
> 
> xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 02/09/99 10:27:14 PM
> 
> To:   xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> cc:    (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID)
> Subject:  Re: Venting
> 
> Guy,
> Paul makes an excellent point since most of the XSL processors only
> implement the "XTL" or tree construction portion of the XSL WD anyway. I
> am in favor of splitting the the spec or at least having a further
> clarified specification that treats the transformation and formatting as
> two separate entities.
> Most of the implementors of the XSL processors apparently have felt this
> way from the start in my opinion since some are working on the
> Transformation process and others are working on the "FO" section.
> --Keith
> Paul Prescod wrote:
> >
> > Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > Yes I would rather see 100 XTL languages rather than see XSL sullied.
> >
> > Sullied is a pretty vague word. Most of us in favor of separating out the
> > transformation language believe that the XSL style language would be
> > stronger after that change.
> >
> > > If you want to discuss the future of XTL, please go form an XTL mailing
> > > list.
> >
> > The XSL transformation langauge is currently a part of the XSL
> > specification. This is the most appropriate place to discuss it unless
> > that changes.
> >
> > I would venture that far and away most of the people in this fora are
> > using the transformation language without the formatting objects. Would
> > you really like all of them to "go away?"
> >
> > --
> >  Paul Prescod  - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself
> >  http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco
> >
> > "Remember, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did,
> > but she did it backwards and in high heels."
> >                                                --Faith Whittlesey
> >
> >  XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
> 
>  XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
> 
>  XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list