SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Don't get too close, I bite! Nicky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Lancashire, UK
    Posts
    8,277
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Extensible Stylesheet Language

    From the www.w3c.org

    16 October 2001: The World Wide Web Consortium today released the Extensible Stylesheet Language (XSL) 1.0 as a W3C Recommendation. The specification has been reviewed by the W3C Membership, who favor its adoption by industry. Designers use an XSL stylesheet to express how source content should be styled, laid out, and paginated onto a presentation medium such as a browser window, a pamphlet or a book.

  2. #2
    Digital Warrior Renegade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    480
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I just don't see the need for this. Browsers are still quite behind the times. A lot of people are still using NS4 which does not even fully support CSS1, now we get to learn another language which will probably not even be supported by many browser for at least a year or two?

    HTML/CSS XML/XSL. Unless someone can prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the latter is superior, I will continuing to do what I am doing(the former). At this point, HTML/CSS can do everything XML/XSL can. *shrug* If not, than PHP/MySQL can fill in the gaps

    *sigh* I think the W3C's time could be better spent in other ways.
    --There's my 1.5 cents, now where is my change!?!?

  3. #3
    SitePoint Wizard creole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Nashvegas Baby!
    Posts
    7,845
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I agree...until browser manufacturers are forced to make fully compliant browsers then creating and recommending new technology makes absolutely no sense.
    Adobe Certified Coldfusion MX 7 Developer
    Adobe Certified Advanced Coldfusion MX Developer
    My Blog (new) | My Family | My Freelance | My Recipes

  4. #4
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Milton Keynes, UK
    Posts
    1,011
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    One thing to remember though is that you don't have to use XML/XSL on the client. The XSL transformation can be done on the server and the results sent to the client. So if you have the data in XML format you can just alter the XSL file to totally change the output.

    However, I don't think it's as simple as letting the 'designers' to the presentation of the page with XSL as often there's elements of pages that are required by the site 'programmers' which need to be embedded in the page (eg hidden form fields, querystring values).

    Designers use an XSL stylesheet to express how source content should be styled, laid out, and paginated onto a presentation medium such as a browser window, a pamphlet or a book.
    The above section seems to imply that the 'designers' should be responsible for paging content. The problem I'd have with that is that if the content is being pulled from a db then you'd have to pull all the related content from the db so that the designer can decide which 'page' that want to display. Very inefficient.

    Of course this all means that the data has to be in xml format to start with. If your content is in XML format to start with then fine but from my own limited testing converting recordsets to XML and then displaying the data is considerably slower than other methods (ie using the rs itself or converting the rs to an array).

    I think XML/XSL have their place in web development but I think some of the w3c's views are unrealistic.

    *sigh* I think the W3C's time could be better spent in other ways.
    A bit of time spent tarting up the design of their own site wouldn't go amiss.
    Last edited by shane; Oct 19, 2001 at 09:37.

  5. #5
    Digital Warrior Renegade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    480
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by shane
    A bit of time spent tarting up the design of their own site wouldn't go amiss.
    lol, good call

    I think the W3C ought to spend more time lobbying browser makers to make their browsers more standards compliant.

    I think they should poor some life into the HTML/CSS validators they have on their site. Maybe some kinda club or reward for having a site that complies with the standards.

    Somehow encourage everyone who complies, to place that logo on their site. I originally found the W3 validator by clicking on one of those images.

    www techonology is moving too quickly. Lets slow down a little, and perfect what we already have.
    --There's my 1.5 cents, now where is my change!?!?

  6. #6
    SitePoint Wizard Aes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    3,392
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Those are all excellent points. Why create new standards for people to follow when they do not even follow the old ones? It is simply pointless.

    The point about having W3C somehow lobbying browsers to support all those technologies fully is a great idea, but how can they be persuaded to even consider doing that?

    I, personally, would love having full browser compliancy -- each browser maker having a compliancy chart that would allow them to attempt to market their browser.

    Anyone have any ideas as to how to convince W3C to lobby or browser makers to complete for compliancy?
    Colin Anderson
    Ambition is a poor excuse for those without
    sense enough to be lazy.

  7. #7
    Digital Warrior Renegade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    480
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Aes
    Why create new standards for people to follow when they do not even follow the old ones?
    Well put Aes

    Another point. W3C should lobby developers of web authoring software which codes non-standard HTML. (DW/Frontpage) DW is better than FP, but sometimes not by much.

    I have been thinking about how to convince W3C of that for a long time now. I have not come up with anything except just emailing them and asking them to real nice like

    Not sure a petition would do any good. No matter how many signatures were on it.

    What about if a group of web designers went before their board, and made a presentation? heh heh
    --There's my 1.5 cents, now where is my change!?!?

  8. #8
    Don't get too close, I bite! Nicky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Lancashire, UK
    Posts
    8,277
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, feel free to volunteer I am sure that they need all the help they can get. I wouldn't mind being on sabbatical to them one day a week or something.

  9. #9
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Milton Keynes, UK
    Posts
    1,011
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Maybe some kinda club or reward for having a site that complies with the standards
    I can see it now "I went to the W3C and validated my website and all I got was this lousy graphic.""

    If you have a look through some of the specs. published by the W3C you'll see many of the people involved in developing them actually work for some of the big names (eg Microsoft, IBM, Adobe etc). I'm sure the broswer developers are fully aware that their browsers aren't standards compliant.

    I think it's a bit of a chicken and egg scenario. Why should browsers developers make their products compliant when so many web developers are writing non complient code? But then many web developers are writing non-compliant code because they know that if don't they'll have sites that look like crap in certain browsers.

    Most browser users probably don't care or even know how compliant the broswer they're using is. All they know is whether a site looks good or bad and if it's bad then the web designers will be blamed. So I don't think the idea of browser developers marketing their browsers on compliancy would get very far.

    I think the Browser Upgrade campaign is probably of more use in getting standards changed, but this requires web site owners to effectivly tell some of their users that their "browser is crap, so get a new one". I don't think many web sites will do this but it does organise a number of prominent designers together to campaign for standards.

  10. #10
    ALT.NET - because we need it silver trophybronze trophy dhtmlgod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    4,836
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm just about to go to bed, so I haven't really read all the replies, so excuse me if this is already been said.

    IE5.5 and 6 support XML with XSL and XSLT and DTD.

    Theres my two cents.

    Tho, I can't remember of the top of my head, W3C had a different system for DTD I think, but MS thought of a better way and ended up using that.

    Theres my input.

    See ya all in a few hrs

  11. #11
    SitePoint Addict five40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Imatra, Finland
    Posts
    215
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, I think that XSL is a great step forward. Like someone mentioned earlier on another thread (about XML) that this XML-stuff is more likely to have a heavy impact on B2B world (or corporate). I think that on a personal web building level it might not be that big issue, people are happy with XHTML / CSS. XSL has a poor support nowadays (any other browser than IE support this ??). But like Shane said, XSL transformation can be on the server side. I think that the idea is great and it's coming more important when we have different devices connecting to the web.
    "-Surely you can't be serious ?
    -Yes I am serious...and don't call me Shirley."

  12. #12
    will code HTML for food Michel V's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Corsica
    Posts
    552
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes, IE 6 is SO compliant it doesn't display this as a webpage: http://mozillaquestquest.com/ (this is a satire of the buffon site MozillaQuest.com)

    Check the same site with Mozilla, it displays like it should, as a website.


    Really, you're being fooled when you believe IE supports anything... Pardon the flame, but I just couldn't let said that IE was the 'only' browser that supports XML, especially when you can see such non-compliant behaviours happening...

  13. #13
    SitePoint Addict five40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Imatra, Finland
    Posts
    215
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, I think that right now XSL should be used on the server side since most of the browsers don't support it natively.
    "-Surely you can't be serious ?
    -Yes I am serious...and don't call me Shirley."


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •