Framing the XSL Debate: An Editor's Note

An Editor's Note

Two issues ago, Ken Holman wrote a piece that showed how to publish to IE5, and to generate server-side HTML, using XML+XSL. Ken's article, I thought, was incredibly useful. It taught me why my attempts to get XML+XSL had failed, and pushed me over the threshold where I could actually use XSL a bit. Ken also claimed that he couldn't really see any real basis for controversy between XSL and CSS.

At XML Europe 99, in May in Granada, Spain, it became obvious that whether Ken is right or not, the controversy actually exists. CITEC's Michael Leventhal denounced XSL at length in colorful (and extremely entertaining) terms. Shortly thereafter, he wrote XML.com a sharply-worded note suggesting that just in case there was a controversy, our readers ought to have a chance to hear both sides. Operating in the honorable old Internet tradition, we said "OK, you write it up for us." He did, and here it is.

What Do We Think?

Speaking for XML.com, I can say that we, as a group or a publication, don't really take positions on things - among other things, it's rare that we all agree. So please, it is within nobody's rights to claim that XML.com is either pro-XSL or anti-XSL.

Speaking only for myself (not repeat not repeat NOT for XML.com), I should say that I share some of Michael's concerns. I'm both a page-designer and a programmer, and for me, XML+CSS+DOM provide a lightweight framework that gets out of my way and lets me use time-tested tools and approaches; XSL seems to require a preparatory brain transplant.

This will not be a surprise to anyone who heard my closing keynote at XTech'99. On the other hand, if there is such a thing as an "XSL Camp", its members include some of the wisest people in this community, including (to mention only three) Jon Bosak, James Clark, and Adam Bosworth. Furthermore, there will be many, myself included, who feel that Michael has skipped rather lightly over the issues with generating print. So all I can say with any authority is that Michael, in this article, raises some very good questions.

I'd like to thank Ken Holman and Michael Leventhal, on behalf of XML.com and the whole community, for laying these issues out so clearly and making us think about them. We are in their debt.

Where To From Here?

This issue is important, and this story is not over. We've talked this over at XML.com, and we feel we have a clear responsibility to follow up on this set of issues and see if we can shake loose some answers to Michael Leventhal's good questions. XML.com's Publisher Dale Dougherty explains the next steps:

To encourage discussion on XSL, we are setting up a special discussion forum on XML.com. Unlike newsgroups and mailing lists, this forum will be open to posting for one week only.

The forum is publicly viewable, but to participate in the discussion, you must fill out a short registration form before starting to post. You can use the forum via the Web or you can choose during registration to receive the messages via email.

We think that discussion in the form of alternating broadsides, as we've heard from Ken and Michael, is instructive, but that its usefulness may be over. We hope that forum participants will be fair-minded and open-minded in exploring these issue more fully.

After the close of the open forum, in about two weeks time, XML.com will present a roundtable discussion on XSL featuring several experts. We like the idea of a roundtable format (although given the distribution of the experts, the round table may have to be virtual). We will be recording a teleconference and streaming it from our site. Your input is welcome not only on XSL itself, but on how we can best proceed to explore these issues.