- From: Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom@accesscable.net>
- Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:40:45 -0400
- To: <www-xsl-fo@w3.org>, "Dave Pawson" <daveP@dpawson.freeserve.co.uk>
Hi, Dave I like the idea of the link back to source, but mostly from the audit viewpoint. I come from a scientific data processing background, which stresses data history as strongly as the "chain of evidence" is stressed in modern jurisprudence. I've seen data files that had 5 or 10 rows of data but about 2 pages worth of header describing their processing history, right back to the make and serial number of the original sampling instrument. OK, this is overkill. :-) But if we view source XML as data (which I do) then I think the idea of maintaining an audit trail during sequences of XML processing is valuable. The semantic data doesn't have to be embedded; it just has to be _retrievable_. I see no real requirement for "always on". From an FO viewpoint it's really a double-link: one identifying the source and one identifying the XSLT. Regards, Arved ----- Original Message ----- From: Dave Pawson <daveP@dpawson.freeserve.co.uk> To: <www-xsl-fo@w3.org> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 1:12 PM Subject: Re: Using an XSL Formatter as an XSL-FO Web Browser > At 04:02 PM 2/10/01, Arved Sandstrom wrote: > > >Taken at face value I think it makes some good points. I like the suggestion > >that general XSL "things" not be called "stylesheets", because they aren't; > >so I've been pushing that idea rather strongly myself. I like the idea that > >FO documents should contain a link back to their source > > Which is fine for a permanently on source, but for someone with a dial-up > cnx? For that reason only, I think this is only a partial solution. > (Then there is the case of the 'full' xml, from which you only get > a part as media X. Again flawed?)
Received on Saturday, 10 February 2001 12:46:05 UTC