Subject: RE: Language is not markup and markup is not language. From: "Scott S. Lawton" <ssl@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 15:22:11 -0400 |
>You might enjoy writing > ><expr operator="+"><operand>2</operand><operand>2</operand></expr> > >Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer 2+2. Call me old-fashioned, I prefer writing: <script> if (someObject.someProperty == 10) ... else ... </script> to the <xsl:when> (or whatever it is) that's required by the current draft. The XSL WG chose to squeeze procedural features into XML syntax rather than using something familiar. Then, they created their own syntax* for patterns rather than using XML, with all the attendent parsing benefits. A very good case could be made for either doing it the other way around (leave procedural stuff in the familiar script/programatic form but express patterns in XML, perhaps something like http://www.publishanywhere.com/xsl/patterns-as-xml-1a.html) or putting both in XML syntax. *Finally there's an acknowledged effort underway to unify with XPointer syntax, so "their own" no longer applies directly. But, the point remains that patterns can be pretty complicated and that there's lots of hidden meanings in the / [] () stuff. $0.25, Scott XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: Language is not markup and mark, Kay Michael | Thread | Re: Language is not markup and mark, Chuck White |
Re: Language is not markup and mark, Scott S. Lawton | Date | Re: Part A - Generic parse.allXML f, Matthew MacKenzie |
Month |