Subject: Re: 2.6 patterns: let's try variations on the XML syntax From: Dave Peterson <davep@xxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 18:14:53 -0400 |
At 10:33 AM -0400 8/25/98, Scott Lawton wrote: >But, what's the goal? To pick the best syntax for macros, programming >constructs and template match, or to express as much of XSL in XML as is >reasonable? "As much...as is reasonable"...But "reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder. How many mathematicians are willing to do real math in MathML? Have you ever run into a serious program-writing interface that shielded the programmer from the syntax of the language? I'm not *that* optimistic about XML's universality. Granted, probably most any programming *can* be expressed as an XML document, but should it? (Can you imagine creating a program-writing tool that kept your structured C++ code as XML?) Dave Peterson SGMLWorks! davep@xxxxxxx XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: 2.6 patterns: let's try variati, Paul Prescod | Thread | Re: 2.6 patterns: let's try variati, Andy Dent |
Re: 2.6 patterns: let's try variati, Paul Prescod | Date | Re: 2.6 patterns: let's try variati, Chris von See |
Month |