Subject: RE: [xsl] object-oriented XSL From: "Hunsberger, Peter" <Peter.Hunsberger@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:13:26 -0500 |
> of course it is sufficient, so is a Turing machine, it doesn't mean that > it is the most suitable tool for the purpose. i'm not here to preach the > advantages of object-oriented development, but i believe that although > XSLT can be used for other things, it's purpose and focus is, and should > be, XML transforms. Fair enough, I'm suggesting that XML transforms are sufficient (and efficient) for implementing business logic... > i think i am capable to see the strengths as well > as the weaknesses of XSLT. and it's exactly its strengths that i am > wishing to leverage here, and i think that to a great extent that can be > done within a purely procedural, oo model. There are times I wish that XSLT did have a better OO model, but that is in the way that includes and imports work. XSLT 2 with the ability to have multi-modal templates may solve some more of this requirement. However, there are still some gaps. I'm still at a loss as to what your hoping to achieve beyond what existing languages can do? > XSP is nice, but it doesn't go all the way in integrating the language > into the XML model as XSLT has. Yes, personally, I avoid XSP it's just too semantically cumbersome... XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] object-oriented XSL, Max Froumentin | Thread | RE: [xsl] object-oriented XSL, martin |
RE: [xsl] Plural attribute values v, Ed Blachman | Date | Re: [xsl] object-oriented XSL, martin |
Month |