Re: XSL is difficult to...?

Subject: Re: XSL is difficult to...?
From: "Don Park" <donpark@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:07:02 -0700
> Not to rock your boat dude, but you indicate here that you are upset
> with the readability issues of XML.  Down further, you start blasting
> the language because someone is using >xsl:apply-templates> instead of
> <xsl:apply>.  IF you look at apply-templates, although it is long, it is
> definately readable.  A language which is Human Readable being one of
> the prime directives of XML and XSL, I think it is fine as drafted.

IMHO, verbosity does not always increase readability.  I find it hard to
distinguish the literal result output portions of the XSL when they are
surrounded with verbose XSL tags.

I guess what I want is readable and concise names.  'previously specified'
is just as readable as the word 'the' yet the later is used predominantly
because it is concise and because it does not de-emphasize the words that

I am not necessarily proposing that 'switch' and 'case' be used.  I want us
to discuss the choice of names publically so that better names can be found
if possible.  XSL can only get better if we ask ourselves questions like why
we have both 'otherwise' and 'else' instead of just 'else'?

> XSL is fine the way it is being developed.

Since this mailing list is a part of the development process, I agree with
you entirely.



 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread