A weaker XSL?

[Clark Evans]

"Matthew Sergeant (EML)" wrote:
> I guess what I should have said was "Why not use CSS then". If we're
> talking about an XSL that doesn't do transformations then it's CSS you
> should use.

I'm not suggesting that the weakend XSL woudn't do any
transformations, only that the transformations it does
be based upon a stream rather than upon an object.

If this dosn't make sence, then I'd like to hear more.

What I'd rather not see is a "single" language which 
defines XML->HTML mappings where an intermediate
form could increase reusability.  Thus, 
                 
                   |  -> (XSL) -> HTML
                   | /
  XML -> (XTL) -> XML -> (XSL) -> XML
                   | \
                   |  -> (XSL) -> PDF?
                   |
 DOM, Server       |   SAX Client(s)
 Side Processing   |   Side Processing
                   |
 * Ordering        |   * Filtering
 * Table of        |   * Formatting
   Contents        |   * Contextual Linking?
 * Other "shared   |   * Other "individual
   and information |     preference-oriented 
   generating      |     stylistic operations"
   operations"

Mathematically speaking, I'd like to see SAX as
a sufficient condition for XSL processing, where 
I'd like to see a full-blown DOM implementation
used when it is a necessary condition for XTL.

This way items like a table of contents, sorting,
and other commonly used transformations can
be seperated from the customized, style oriented
transformations.


:) Clark

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)