<-prev [Thread] next-> <-prev [Date] next->
Month Index | List Home

Re: 2.6 patterns: let's try variations on the XML syntax

Subject: Re: 2.6 patterns: let's try variations on the XML syntax
From: Scott Lawton <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 20:19:15 -0400
to the earlier:
>>My past personal experience has been that there isn't necessarily a
>>divergence between simplicity and power

Chris von See replied:
>I agree.

>I would want to see a VERY convincing argument that justified increased
>complexity in XSL.

So would I!  The question: is an XML-based syntax for patterns more or less
complex than the current working draft?  And, complex for which audience?
And, let's be careful to distinguish "complex" from "takes longer to type".

Especially given that tags in the "action" area (e.g. <HTML><HEAD>...) are
literal, I think it would be really nice for tags in the match part to be
literal.

Also, patterns like "book[excerpt]/author[attribute(degree)]" have hidden
information; it's not at all clear that excerpt and author are siblings.

Finally, patterns-as-XML is easier in the following sense: they can be
edited directly by all XML tools.  Isn't that a big win?

Scott



 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread
<- PreviousIndexNext ->
Re: 2.6 patterns: let's try variati, Andy Dent Thread Re: 2.6 patterns: let's try variati, Paul Prescod
CSS + behavior vs. XSL (was: EcmaS, Jelks Cabaniss Date XT Version 19980829, James Clark
Month