Subject: Re: Leventhal's challenge misses the point From: "Larry Fitzpatrick" <lef@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 14:05:46 -0400 |
From: Kay Michael <Michael.Kay@xxxxxxx> > But then, non-programmers can learn programming too. What we really want is > evidence that non-programmers can learn XSL more easily than they can learn > (say) Javascript. Don't you want evidence that non-programmers can learn XSL more easily than they can learn (say) JavaScript (+whatever) sufficiently to do the document transformations that they want? That is, the comparison must be task-based to keep it apples:apples. In any case, isn't the discussion moot? XSL(T) is being used, ergo it is useful. Shouldn't the discussion focus, independently, on how to make: (a) js+dom, (b) XSL(T) easier to learn? Two tools in the toolbox, not one. lef XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: Leventhal's challenge misses th, Kay Michael | Thread | Re: Leventhal's challenge misses th, Guy Murphy |
Re: Leventhal's challenge misses th, Chuck White | Date | Re: Leventhal's challenge misses th, Chuck White |
Month |