Subject: XSL Syntax From: David RR Webber <Gnosis_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 11:22:36 -0500 |
Someone described XML as "the 40 somethings revenge". To me, when I look at XSL I see Prolog in disguise (but then I've written more Prolog code than most people on the planet!). Of course whenever I've taught Prolog to traditional programmers the non-procedural aspects are like wrenching their head off and nailing it on the other way around - so they can see what the world looks like when they walk away from it all the time.... Once it clicks however - the power of non-procedural approach + recursion are to love for life. So my thoughts are - why muck about with XSL - when you can add a SAX interface to Prolog and drive on <g>. Cleaner simpler is better. DW. Message text written by INTERNET:xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > CSS is not this small little thing for dummies which stands in a corner of the W3C web site. It is clearer, simpler than XSL is (as a member of W3C, I have access to XSL WG docs) and will be. It is extremely powerful and the selector's syntax is the first thing which is really new in the markup language world we have been exploring during 15 years (I am of course forgetting HyTime). Oh, BTW, I've shown examples of XSL to newbies and SGML users too. The result ? They hated it. Quotation : " looks like an hybrid of Perl, csh and SGML invented by a Microsoft employee " :-))) </Daniel> < XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: CSS, XSL & "Religious Schisms" , Markor, John (Non-HP | Thread | Other transformations, James Roberge |
RE: CALS Tables, Markor, John (Non-HP | Date | Re: syntax feedback, Guy_Murphy |
Month |