RE: alternatives to XSL (was RE: Microsoft extensions)

Subject: RE: alternatives to XSL (was RE: Microsoft extensions)
From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 10:25:21 -0500
Thanks a lot Paul, as usual, right on the target.

By the way, thanks for your DSSSL tutorial it helped me a lot to understand
this language.

Cheers

Didier PH Martin
mailto:martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.netfolder.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Paul Prescod
> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 1998 12:32 AM
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: alternatives to XSL (was RE: Microsoft extensions)
>
>
> Didier PH Martin wrote:
> >
> > Hi Paul
> >
> > you said:
> > I don't think of Omnimark as high-level. I think of it as ultra
> low-level.
> > It is focused on the nuts and bolts of the text.
> >
> > Can you briefly describe what you mean by "low level and focused on the
> > text". Is it lower level than XSL and if yes why. We can learn from your
> > explanations.
>
> Omnimark is about string processing. It is very good at matching strings
> that are SGML tags and so forth, but the basic model is the same as
> working through an RTF string or a comma delimited file string. When I
> work with XML, I want to think of it as just a serialization for a *tree*.
> It's the tree that I want to work with in my code. Omnimark is low-level
> in that it works with the string and not the abstraction it represents.
> Python+PyDOM or Python+PyGrove, on the other hand, is about working with
> the tree, which is what you are probably interested in.
>
> http://www.python.org/topics/xml/
>
> Of course, you can also use Python+PySAX, which is somewhere in between
> Omnimark and PyGrove, but even there you have a rich toolbox of data types
> and functions. Omnimark's types and functions are not as rich.
>
>  Paul Prescod  - http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco
>
> At today's pop doubling rates, in 100 years there will be 20 billion
> people, more than enough to fill the earth. In 300 years, we will have
> filled up 16 earth-sized planets (roughly, our solar system). In 2300
> years we will have filled up 200 billion earth-sized planets (roughly,
> our galaxy). Only one technology can save us: birth control.
>
>
>  XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
>


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list


Current Thread