Re: Heresy? Re: DSSSL WWW Enhancements

[lee@xxxxxx]

> I don't see how you will be able to fit all of the Scheme functional style
> into "some other syntax".  It would seem to me that the goal for any
> DSSSL-oriented developer for the mass market should be a good front-end.

These are two separate issues, at least for me.
A good front end is obviously very important -- but it's quite hard, too.
If you've ever used ML, you'll know that there are other possible syntaxes
that can be as complete.

[...]

> The argument against a lisp-like style is rather weak in my book.  I use
> perl all the time and *live* with the hacker`s syntax (excuse me, all you
> perl zealots).  DSSSL can be quite elegant and clear.

Well, if you're aiming at the ``DesperatePerl Hacker', there seem to
be advantages in a more perl-like (or more C-like) syntax.

> I live in a multi-language environment of Scheme, Java, perl, C++, etc.
> and It works just fine and I can use the language *technically*
> appropriate to the job at hand.
Are you (or I) the intended XML style sheet writer?

> This should be our goal for extending DSSSL--simple clear descriptions
> of what should be done--not a change of syntax.

Actually my response in the message you quoted probably makes me seem
more strongly in favour of it thatn I meant to sound.  I *am* in favour
of a langauge that appeals to the C/perl/java/web/CSS crowd, not least
because the no. 1 goal of XML is and has always been SGML on the web.

Lee


 DSSSList info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist