Subject: Re: <xsl-script> From: James Robertson <jamesr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 10:04:59 +1000 |
At 17:24 12/05/1999 , Paul Prescod wrote: | Rick Geimer wrote: | > | > A sample in my favorite language, without a function library :-) | | Cheater. Anyhow, I think you helped to make my point and you might well | have intended to. For those that don't recognize Rick's favorite language, | it is a sophisticated and expensive language designed specifically for XML | processing. In other words, it is like a proprietary XSL on steroids. Its | existence demonstrates that ordinary scripting languages are really not as | easy to use for this stuff as text processing "4GLs". Why is this cheating? Just because some of us choose to use a well-tested, highly-functional system that is here now, and does everything XSL aims to do ... :-) Seriously, though, I do think that XSL needs to prove itself against systems such as Omnimark. Particularly since Omnimark LE is free, and can probably do 95-100% of everything that has been written in XSL so far. Yes, the full copy of Omnimark is very expensive. But when you factor in all the real costs of using other tools, I think it stacks up pretty well. How many hours have people spent chasing the XSL spec now, and finding ways of making code work in broken implentations? And XSL will never match the full functionality of Omnimark. Cheers, James ------------------------- James Robertson Step Two Designs Pty Ltd SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy http://www.steptwo.com.au/ jamesr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx "Beyond the Idea" ACN 081 019 623 XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: <xsl-script>, Paul Prescod | Thread | Re: <xsl-script>, John E. Simpson |
Re: <xsl-script>, James Robertson | Date | HTML | XSLT -> HTML, John J. Barton |
Month |