Subject: Re: why split? [was RE: XSL intent survey] From: "Oren Ben-Kiki" <oren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 20:17:05 +0200 |
Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >... So we'd have transformative declarative syntax, with optional flow objects, >and optional scripting. To my mind (and I realise >everybody has their own biased interests) this would be an appropriate >order for prioritising consideration. This is fine, except it places the transformation issues "before" the formatting. This whole thing started when it was pointed out that the transformation issues were secondary - if you go by the original intent. You get a different language if you want a "transformation language with optional formatting" or a "formatting language with some transformations". This isn't just playing with words - each part requires a lot of effort to do well, and there's only so much to go around. There are also downright conflicts - with regard to the language complexity and intended audience, for example. Have fun, Oren Ben-Kiki XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: why split? [was RE: XSL intent , Oren Ben-Kiki | Thread | RE: why split? [was RE: XSL intent , Lawton, Scott |
Re: why split? [was RE: XSL intent , David Carlisle | Date | RE: why split? [was RE: XSL intent , Lawton, Scott |
Month |