Re: <xsl-script>

Subject: Re: <xsl-script>
From: "John E. Simpson" <simpson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 20:45:17 -0400
At 10:04 AM 05/13/1999 +1000, James Robertson wrote:
>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.

Sure. Just as long as you recognize that 95% of XML users may be 100%
disinclined to acquire and learn a new language. This is a specious
argument -- by the same token, I can do everything that OmniMark does with
Fortran (please don't ask me to, though :).

>And XSL will never match the full functionality
>of Omnimark.

You may be right, although I wouldn't lay money on it. ("Never" is a
dangerous word to use in prognosticating technology.) If you know OmniMark,
you're all set. This may remain true even if you opt never to learn, let
alone use, XSL. XSL doesn't have to "prove itself" against OmniMark, DSSSL,
or anything else -- except for people/organizations who don't already have
an investment in them.
John E. Simpson            | The secret of eternal youth
simpson@xxxxxxxxxxx        | is arrested development.      |  -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread