W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xsl-editors@w3.org > July to September 2001

Call for Review: Extensible Stylesheet Language (XSL) Version 1.0

From: Einar Breen <einar.breen@adaptivemedia.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 11:28:47 +0200
Message-ID: <96EB23CE17E363468132F11B5779447A4048@amintsrv-osl001.int.adaptivemedia.net>
To: <w3c-ac-forum@w3.org>, <xsl-editors@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-archive@w3.org>

I,  W3C Advisory Committee Representative:

#1      Given Name:             Einar
#2      Family Name:            Breen
#3      Email Address:          einar.breen@adaptivemedia.net

as representative for

#4      Employer (W3C Member):  Adaptive Media ASA

review the "XSL 1.0" Proposed Recommendation:


as follows: (please complete the points below by marking with an X
between the [brackets].)

1) As representative of the above company, I suggest that the XSL 1.0
specification (mark one only with X):

#1A     [X ]    be published as a W3C Recommendation as is or with
                insubstantial changes suggested by others;

#1B     [  ]    be published as a W3C Recommendation with the following
                changes (please see section 4);

#1C     [  ]    returned for further work due to substantial problems
                (please see section 4);

#1D     [  ]    not be published as a specification, and discontinued as
                a W3C work item. (please see section 4);

#1E     [  ]    My organization abstains from this review.

2) My organization (mark only one with X):

#2A     [  ]    produces products addressed by XSL 1.0 specification;

#2B     [X ]    expects to produce products conforming to XSL 1.0
                specification, as noted in point 5;

#2C     [  ]    expects to use XSL 1.0 content
#2D     [  ]    does not expect to use XSL 1.0 content or tools

3) Intellectual Property Rights (mark one only with X):

Please note W3C's IPR policy: If you have intellectual property
applicable to these specifications, please disclose according to
W3C's IPR policy:

#3A [X] To the best of my knowledge, my organization does not have
patents which form essential technology for implementing the 
"XSL 1.0"  specification.

#3B [ ] We have disclosed our patents following the procedure


4) Detailed Comments, Reasons, or Modifications:
    In addition to any comments you may have, please indicate your 
    responses to questions 1 and 2 as noted earlier in this ballot.
    This may include, but is not restricted to, technical issues 
    or issues associated with patent claims associated with the 
    XSL 1.0 specification.

There have been some concerns, regarding XSL FO raised among the AC's.
Adaptive Media share some of these concerns. We think it is unfortunate
that XSL FO mix content and style as an architectural principle. Even
though it is possible to separate the stylistic properties into a
separate file, the content and style will be mixed during the
processing. We think this is unfortunate when the result should be
transformed to for example XHTML+CSS. Then style and structured content
must again be separated. 

We do however believe XSL (including XSL FO) is urgently needed and do
not wish to delay this proposal.

5) Expected implementation schedules, where known, without commitment, 
   as appropriate in 2B above:

No comments

6) Disclosure of Review response (Mark all appropriate items with X)

#6A [X] My organization is willing to share its review with the W3C
Membership. (please copy <w3c-archive@w3.org> in this case.)

Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2001 05:28:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:44:21 UTC