Re: Abbreviated Location Paths...

Subject: Re: Abbreviated Location Paths...
From: Jason Diamond <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 19:33:53 -0700
Kay Michael wrote:

>
> I can't say I'm happy with the compromise of including both forms. That's
> always a bad design choice: twice as much work for the implementor, twice as
> many pages in the manual, twice the learning curve for users, larger and
> slower executables, twice the number of bugs. It also suggests a lack of
> clarity in the design objectives.
>

I thought the same at first but upon closer examination of the syntaxes, the
abbreviated syntax is really no more than simple defaults for a few of the
rather verbose, yet common, statements. It will hardly be twice the
implementation, instruction, resources, etc. I actually think the abbreviated
syntax doesn't even warrant its own section and having it as such only
reinforces the false impression that they are two disparate entities.

On the other hand, I couldn't find any explanation nor was I able to justify one
on my own for the distinctions between expressions and patterns. Is this purely
an implementation issue or am I missing something?

Jason.



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


Current Thread