Re: <xsl-script>

Subject: Re: <xsl-script>
From: James Robertson <jamesr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 10:04:59 +1000
At 17:24 12/05/1999 , Paul Prescod wrote:

  | Rick Geimer wrote:
  | >
  | > A sample in my favorite language, without a function library :-)
  | Cheater. Anyhow, I think you helped to make my point and you might well
  | have intended to. For those that don't recognize Rick's favorite language,
  | it is a sophisticated and expensive language designed specifically for XML
  | processing. In other words, it is like a proprietary XSL on steroids. Its
  | existence demonstrates that ordinary scripting languages are really not as
  | easy to use for this stuff as text processing "4GLs".

Why is this cheating?

Just because some of us choose to use a well-tested,
highly-functional system that is here now, and does
everything XSL aims to do ... :-)

Seriously, though, I do think that XSL needs to
prove itself against systems such as Omnimark.

Particularly since Omnimark LE is free, and can
probably do 95-100% of everything that has been
written in XSL so far.

Yes, the full copy of Omnimark is very expensive.
But when you factor in all the real costs of
using other tools, I think it stacks up pretty

How many hours have people spent chasing
the XSL spec now, and finding ways of making
code work in broken implentations?

And XSL will never match the full functionality
of Omnimark.



James Robertson
Step Two Designs Pty Ltd
SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy

"Beyond the Idea"
 ACN 081 019 623

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread