Questioning XSL

[David Megginson]

Charles Reitzel writes:
 > From: David Megginson <david at megginson.com>

 > >There can still, of course, be benefits to standardizing
 > >(especially if there are OTS software components available), but
 > >those benefits are proportional only to the number of existing
 > >scripts or document types -- XSL will bring exactly the same
 > >benefit for 1,000 pages as it will for 1,000,000 pages, assuming
 > >the same number of processes and document types.
 > 
 > The same argument applies, of course, to XML, SGML, TCP/IP or any
 > standard.  The need for standards is inversely proportional to the
 > scale of the job.

Not exactly -- the benefit of standardising the document format (XML,
SGML, etc.) is directly proportional to the amount of documentation,
while the benefit of standardising the processing methods is
proportional only to the number of processing tasks.  That means that,
for typical enterprise systems, there is a very big bang from choosing
a standard document format like XML, but only a small pop from
choosing a standard processing format like XSL.


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson                 david at megginson.com
           http://www.megginson.com/

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)