A weaker XSL?

[Paul Prescod]

Clark Evans wrote:
> 
> Things like sorting, re-arranging, table-of-contents
> generation, etc. are really large processing instructions
> that are more along the line of *what* to process, rather
> than *how* the information should be presented. Things like
> this could be moved into XQL or some other transformation
> language, leaving XSL a more pure "style" oriented
> specification.

XSL is the dominant transformation language for XML content. As far as
standardization goes, XQL doesn't even exist.

> Thus XSL wouldn't be *generating* a table of contents,
> it would only let you choose if you want to display it,
> and if it is displayed, how it is displayed, in green
> ink or red, bold or itallic, Aa1i style or 1.1.1.1
> style, etc.

You are describing CSS. The Web community decided that we needed XSL
because CSS does NOT do sorting, re-arranging, TOC generation, cross
referencing, etc. Your "weaker XSL" already exists and is called CSS.

 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

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)