Re: Leventhal's challenge misses the point

Subject: Re: Leventhal's challenge misses the point
From: Sara Mitchell <smitchel@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 10:19:59 -0700
There is one other issue that you're missing here -- will the
non-programmer be as willing to learn JavaScript as XSL? 

This is probably dependent on the person and their background, 
but there is at least one really big point in favor of XSL
over the programming/scripting laguages (at least in my
opinion). In fact, I've heard it mentioned by programmers in 
this list for why XSL is so *hard* -- it relates rather 
naturally to how documents are structured. That might not make 
it simpler to learn for a graphic designer, but it does for 
writers (myself included). 

I've put style sheets together for documents in word processors,
DTP packages, and in style editors for SGML (and now XML). 
The tools **do** make it easier, and XSL doesn't really have
any right now. But believe me, learning some of the intricasies
of XSL is still a very small step for me in comparison to learing
JavaScript. And this is step I'm willing to take, but programming
is not.

Sara Mitchell

Kay Michael wrote:
> > Firstly, I do not believe that non-programmers can't use XSL. I *am* a
> > non-programmer (and the fact that I subscribe to this list
> > doesn't change that) and I *have* learnt (well.. or am learning) to use
> XSL.
> But then, non-programmers can learn programming too. What we really want is
> evidence that non-programmers can learn XSL more easily than they can learn
> (say) Javascript.
> Mike Kay
>  XSL-List info and archive:

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread