Subject: Re: Language is not markup and markup is not language. From: Rick Geimer <rick.geimer@xxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 09:58:29 -0700 |
Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > While I think it a *very* worthwhile and useful effort, I don't see it as > competing necessarily with XSL as the advantage of XSL over a scripted > implimnetation is that the very fact that XSL is XML means that it can be > treated as data, transformed, pointed into, queried, split into sub-trees > etc etc. It's for these reasons that XSL is in the form of XML, and that > the general drive is toward all XML related technologies being described in > XML. It's a little late now as far as XSL is concerned, but I sometimes wonder if it would have been possible to simply take an existing language and massage it into XML syntax. This could have accomplished the ease of processing goals you mentioned above, allowed for greater flexibility, and helped speed adoption. Just a thought. Is there still room in that bunker? Rick Geimer National Semiconductor rick.geimer@xxxxxxx XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Language is not markup and mark, Larry Fitzpatrick | Thread | Re: Language is not markup and mark, David LeBlanc |
Re: Test for the existence of attri, Keith Visco | Date | Re: Language is not markup and mark, David LeBlanc |
Month |