Subject: RE: [xsl] LINQ to XML versus XSLT From: "Scott Trenda" <Scott.Trenda@xxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:23:18 -0500 |
I mean a language, to be used on the server side on web servers, that can talk to the database, the file system, and other protocols, and dynamically assemble an HTML or XML view of a requested page to be delivered to the client. "Bad" or not, this is a reality that nearly EVERY web developer has to deal with frequently, and my question still stands. :) Also, I don't claim to know why you think preprocessors are "just bad", but just because many of the current implementations are ugly doesn't make the idea flawed. ~ Scott -----Original Message----- From: Colin Paul Adams [mailto:colin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 10:16 AM To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [xsl] LINQ to XML versus XSLT >>>>> "Scott" == Scott Trenda <Scott.Trenda@xxxxxxxx> writes: Scott> My reply is getting a little off-topic, but on the same Scott> note, why haven't we seen a widely-used XML-based HTML Scott> preprocessor language yet? Pre-processors are just bad. (If you mean macro processors, that is. If you mean transformation languages, such as XSLT, then you have the answer to your own question.) -- Colin Adams Preston Lancashire
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] LINQ to XML versus XSLT, Colin Paul Adams | Thread | Re: [xsl] LINQ to XML versus XSLT, Colin Paul Adams |
Re: [xsl] LINQ to XML versus XSLT, Colin Paul Adams | Date | Re: [xsl] LINQ to XML versus XSLT, Colin Paul Adams |
Month |