Re: (dsssl) Heresy

Subject: Re: (dsssl) Heresy
From: Dave Pawson <dpawson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 12:17:01 +0100
At 13:40 04/04/2003 -0500, Pavel Tolkachev wrote:

> Actually, in today's depressed training marketplace, I suppose I can't say
> I'm getting much business from either, but certainly it has been *zero* for
> DSSSL for a few years now.

That's probably because the people who need DSSSL prefer self-learning :-). Personally to me XSL is much uglier than DSSSL (which is also not a fun, but at least the only lisp I can understand).

Funny, I've heard that one of the prime reasons for the low uptake of dsssl is the
lispishness of it, endless brackets.
I guess if you are at home with lisp, that gives a natural bias.

With an xml bias, the verbosity of XSLT/XSL-FO is something you do get used to. Honest.

And, on a side note, to me XML is much-much-much uglier than SGML, (especially for data storage and transmission and manual typing -- but for what else you want to use it? :-)).

Please don't start that one again :-)

With tool help, xml isn't so bad. Even for the doc-heads.
regards DaveP

DSSSList info and archive:

Current Thread