Re: (dsssl) Heresy

[Dave Pawson <dpawson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist