XSL Debate, Leventhal responds to Stephen Deach

[Rick Jelliffe]

From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl at simonstl.com>
 >XSL in its present form is unnecessary, doing nothing new (the
Leventhal
>argument), and brings with it new dangers (an easy move away from the
>semantic Web).  To me, that's a pretty good case for passing on XSL.

We do not have a semantic Web anyway: at least not until there are
widely
accepted and used controlled vocabularies installed.  And there is a
level
of markup even within semantically-marked-up data that can usefully be
asemantic (if that is a word) (i.e., generic markup against uncontrolled
vocabularies: labels) or even non-semantic (i.e. processing).

Transforming <person style="bold"> to <xsl:fo variation="bold"
class="person">
(that is not the correct syntax, dont flame me, it is just an example)
does
not convert the data away from being usable on the semantic web: if
there
is nothing to tie "person" into some controlled vocabulary, you didn't
have
"semantic markup" anyway.

Rick Jelliffe


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)