RE: [xsl] Apply-templates - how to omit top level element tags?

["Mike Schinkel" <mikes@xxxxxxxxx>]

>> It sounds like you and your group could do with a little sympathetic
training. XML is basically simple, but its ramifications are deep and
complex and potentially reach into everything you do with electronic
data.  Many organizations find it liberating to have this power; others
find the responsibility bewildering and would rather have "the experts"
do it. This can be fine until you discover the experts have something
else in mind.

My group is comprised almost completely ego-centric freelancers.  It's
like hearding cats. :(

>> The key question is "what do you mean by 'schema'" -- if a W3C XML
Schema, I'd recommend looking at XMetaL (now from BlastRadius I think).
Unfortunately, the question is off topic on the list, which is about
XSL.

Is it really off topic?  I'm looking for a tool that will let people
edit in XML with a validating schema and use XSL to display. Better yet
would be to use a tool that would let me modify the output visually and
update the XSL.  But if you think it's off topic, I'll respect that.

-Mike



-----Original Message-----
From: Wendell Piez [mailto:wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 4:35 PM
To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [xsl] Apply-templates - how to omit top level element tags?

Hi again Mike,

At 03:30 PM 9/8/2005, you wrote:
>To understand http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath requires you to understand the

>terms in the way they are used, which for a newbie, requires
>chicken-or-egg logic.  Examples help the newbie learn the context in
>which the terms are applies so that they can they learn the subject
>which the terms are used to describe.

I think this is the case with any non-trivial undertaking.

>Just an observation, but I think one reason XSLT has not taken off more

>than it has is because it is so difficult to learn, and my intuition
>tells me that is shouldn't have to be that difficult but the terms used

>to describe things and the required mental model are not easy to pick
>up, so many people don't.

That may be true, but if so it's a glass-half-empty argument. Some would
say that XML/XSLT has taken off, phenomenally well actually, and that
accordingly it's been a victim of its own success, since it's being
taken up by all kinds of people who don't understand the principles on
which the technology is based, and discover they don't actually have
much sympathy with those principles when they encounter them. Who's to
blame for this?

One of the deeper principles is "it's better to understand and control
your own data format than it is to cede that control to a software
vendor whose objectives are aligned with yours only incidentally, if at
all".

There are plenty of organizations for whom that may not be true. If you
are a happy member of the mass of people and organizations whose every
desire is anticipated by the developers of proprietary "Office"
packages, and who have the budget to follow the upgrade path dictated by
the vendor, and who never expect to migrate that data off that platform
... then go with the vendor. It's certainly easier to spend a few
hundred than it is to learn an entirely new tech that requires you to
get your hands dirty.

>For example, my editorial team for http://www.howtoselectguides.com/ is

>pushing me to drop the use of XML publishing and move to publishing in
>Word.  Doing that will kill my ability to use the content in numerous
>contexts, but because XML/XSLT is so difficult for the laymen, I may be

>forced to.

It sounds like you and your group could do with a little sympathetic
training. XML is basically simple, but its ramifications are deep and
complex and potentially reach into everything you do with electronic
data.
Many organizations find it liberating to have this power; others find
the responsibility bewildering and would rather have "the experts" do
it. This can be fine until you discover the experts have something else
in mind.

>P.S. Does anyone know a really good WYSIWYG editing tool that doesn't
>get in the way but still supports editing XML to a schema?  We can't
>seem to find one...

The key question is "what do you mean by 'schema'" -- if a W3C XML
Schema, I'd recommend looking at XMetaL (now from BlastRadius I think).
Unfortunately, the question is off topic on the list, which is about
XSL.

Cheers,
Wendell


======================================================================
Wendell Piez                            mailto:wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mulberry Technologies, Inc.                http://www.mulberrytech.com
17 West Jefferson Street                    Direct Phone: 301/315-9635
Suite 207                                          Phone: 301/315-9631
Rockville, MD  20850                                 Fax: 301/315-8285
----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in SGML and XML
======================================================================