Subject: Re: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists as tables) From: pandeng@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Steve Schafer) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 17:12:17 GMT |
On Fri, 15 Oct 1999 09:51:35 +0100 (BST), you wrote: >Ironic, isn't it. The whole XSL thing started because people said >DSSSL's Lisp was "just too wierd for most programmers". I always found that argument hard to swallow. Lisp/Scheme is so simple that any _programmer_ should be able to pick up enough of it to do anything required for DSSSL within a week. Of course, there are plenty of programming dilettantes out there who can't be bothered to learn anything new, but if XSL is aimed at them, then it is pretty much by definition going to be unsuitable for "professional" use. Let's face it: Document layout is a non-trivial exercise. Any attempt to dumb it down to the point that anybody can use it without having to think about what they're doing means that it won't be able to accomplish much. Look at the situation with JavaScript: There are numerous web sites where people can download snippets of JavaScript which can be used to produce this or that effect on their web pages. No need to actually _understand_ any of that code--just cut and paste, fill in a few blanks, and off you go. Is that the direction we're headed in with XSL/XSLT? If so, let me off at the next stop. >I have never met anyone who liked CSS. You can add me to your list as one more data point. :) I probably wouldn't dislike it so much if the browser vendors actually implemented it in a consistent way. -Steve Schafer XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists , Didier PH Martin | Thread | Re: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists , Steve Schafer |
;) Was: Re: Accessing the element s, Clark C. Evans | Date | Re: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists , Steve Schafer |
Month |