Subject: Re: Comments on XSL Draft From: ht@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Henry S. Thompson) Date: 19 Aug 1998 10:44:17 +0100 |
ray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes: > [a number of thoughtful criticisms of the XSL draft] This one will run and run. There are two main reasons I think trying a string-based pattern syntax makes sense: * We had a lot of feedback on 'A Proposal for XSL' which complained bitterly about the verbosity and messiness of the XML-based pattern syntax: patterns simply occupied too much real estate to be understood; * We will need, once we get an expression language back in, to use patterns in expressions. The issue of XPOINTER convergence is also very relevant here. This is a public process, I'm sure all suggestions for alternative approaches to patterns which address these issues will be taken seriously. But please have a go at using the new language: ANY complex syntax, whether expressed in a DTD or not, seems awkward at first encounter. ht [speaking for myself, not the XSL WG] -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Comments on XSL Draft, ray | Thread | RE: Comments on XSL Draft, Gavin Thomas Nicol |
New/old pattern syntax, why can't w, Pasqualino \"Titto\" | Date | Re: Any examples of server side XML, Chris Lilley |
Month |