|
Subject: Re: Leventhal's challenge misses the point From: "Larry Fitzpatrick" <lef@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 14:05:46 -0400 |
From: Kay Michael <Michael.Kay@xxxxxxx>
> 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.
Don't you want evidence that non-programmers can learn XSL more easily than they
can learn (say) JavaScript (+whatever) sufficiently to do the document transformations
that they want? That is, the comparison must be task-based to keep it apples:apples.
In any case, isn't the discussion moot? XSL(T) is being used, ergo it is useful. Shouldn't
the discussion focus, independently, on how to make:
(a) js+dom,
(b) XSL(T)
easier to learn? Two tools in the toolbox, not one.
lef
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
| Current Thread |
|---|
|
| <- Previous | Index | Next -> |
|---|---|---|
| RE: Leventhal's challenge misses th, Kay Michael | Thread | Re: Leventhal's challenge misses th, Guy Murphy |
| Re: Leventhal's challenge misses th, Chuck White | Date | Re: Leventhal's challenge misses th, Chuck White |
| Month |