W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2008

new XSLT output methods, was: several messages

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:09:04 +0200
Message-ID: <48BE8C70.60905@gmx.de>
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
CC: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>

Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> ...
> So what you're saying is that addressing the DOCTYPE issue does very 
> little to solve the problem of making XSLT 1.0 output HTML5.  In which 
> case, I really don't understand why we're speacial casing it at all. 
> Clearly, all of those other problems are going to need to be addressed 
> by the XSLT WG anyway, so just fix the DOCTYPE issue there too.
> ...

I'm not ready to agree that all of the problems need to be addressed in 
XSLT. As stated earlier, maybe it's a problem in *HTML5* when it 
requires each and every producer to be upgraded.

> I really think we should drop it now.  As has already been pointed out, 
> there are workarounds available to output <!DOCTYPE html> using XSLT 1.0 
> using disabled output esacping, and even if that optional feature isn't 
> supported by some particular implementation, then adding a small utility 
> into the tool chain that takes DOCTYPE-less output from the XSLT and 
> prepends the "<!DOCTYPE html>" string is trivial.

Whether it's trivial or not depends a lot on where the serialization 

> I don't think it's fair that HTML5 should bend over backwards to cater 
> for XSLT any more than other authoring tools, especially when, as you 
> pointed out, the DOCTYPE is only a very minor issue compared with 
> supporting all the other new features of HTML5.  Just accept the fact 
> that XSLT 1.0 is not designed for outputting HTML5 and is limited to 
> outputting a mostly HTML4 compatible subset of it, and get one with 
> defining the new output method that solves all the issues together.

Defining it is not sufficient. It also needs to be implemented and 
deployed. In the meantime, people using XSLT will have a hard time 
generating HTML5.

Whether this is a big problem of course is debatable, but it seems to me 
that if a very small change, such as the one suggested by Mike Smith, 
can fix the issue then it's worth doing it.

> Also, I think the idea of this WG defining a new output method for XSLT 
> is absurd.  Let the XSLT WG take on the responsibility of maintaining 
> their own standard, instead of shifting it all onto us.

I personally don't care who's going to do it. As both are W3C working 
groups, the W3C should be able to sort that out. What's important is 
that this doesn't become something for the XSLT-3.0 wish list, when in 
practice, many people are stuck with XSLT 1.0.

BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2008 13:09:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:38 UTC