Weighing in on XSL / Standards

[Heikki Toivonen]

> Rick Jelliffe
> (By the way, why isnt Michael Leventhal also saying that XSchema is a
> waste of time too: one can write DOM programs to do all that validation
> too!)

Show me a released product with buggy XML parser that understands only 30%
or 70% of a DTD. That is the situation with current CSS implementations.

You simply cannot compare XSchema nor XLink/Xpointer to the debate about CSS
and XSL.

We do not have a linking specification for the web. Therefore we need one,
which is why we are developing Xlink/XPointer. Developing XLink/XPointer is
doing no harm.

We have DTDs and we all know they are limited. But because we have good
software that understands DTDs we have a good basis for developing something
better. Developing XSchema is doing no harm.

We already have CSS. What we do not have is a good implementation. Here XSL
is doing harm - all the hype moved to XSL which is an important contributor
to the fact that we have not seen complete CSS implementations.

In an ideal world we would have unlimited resources and could create good
CSS and XSL implementations at the same time. Alas, in the real world
something has to suffer. Michael pointed out that CSS has suffered from XSL.
But I believe XSL has also suffered from CSS. If we had good CSS
implementations now, more energy could be moved to developing and
implementing XSL.

All the best,

--
  Heikki Toivonen
  http://www.doczilla.com
  http://www.citec.fi


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)