Subject: Son of XSL for non-programmers From: "Eric E. Cohen" <cybercpa@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 06:54:06 -0400 |
> Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 11:05:25 +0200 (CEST) > From: Dieter Maurer <dieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: XSL for non-programmers <ec-said> > > I will echo this. I firmly believe you can teach almost anyone basic XSL for > > displaying, sorting, and filtering XML files. I do not think the same is > > true for VBA, VB, JScript, VBScript, Python, OmniMark, or Supralapsarianism. </ec-said> <dieter-said> > If you focus on *basic* displaying, sorting and filtering XML files, > I may, reluctantly, agree. If you allow to measure the difficulty > to get familiar with the basics of the languages for things, > they have been designed for, I disagree at least with respect to > Python and JavaScript (I do not know the other sufficiently enough). </dieter-said> <ec-replied> May I respectfully say that the *basic* displaying, sorting and filtering is all that most business people want to do! 90% of customizations to accounting software products are in simple reporting. When a business person learns about the sort button and the filter button in Excel, they go nuts. Add in anything under the data menu, and they are experts and gurus in their offices. </ec-replied> <dieter-said> > XSL has been specifically designed for XML processing and > displaying. Thus, it would be a really bad thing, if > elementary tasks in this area would be very difficult. </dieter-said> <ec-replied> But the basics of setting up an XSL file to do these is extremely easy to illustrate. And once the standard is settled, the tools will become plentiful and more user friendly. The XML parsers will start to look like Excel, and have filter and sort buttons, data grouping functionality, and WYSIWYG formatting tools to create XSL with no knowledge whatsoever. </ec-replied> <dieter-said> > Python, as an example, has been designed as a general purpose, > modular, easy to use scripting language and not for XML processing. > I think, it is very easy to learn the basics of the language, > even for non-programmers. You can do XML processing as > well (and even use XSL). Of cause, you will have some > (learning and programming) overhead, if all you need > is what is covered by XSL. </dieter-said> <ec-replied> I will assume you are a programmer. I will assume that learning tools like Python comes easy for you. I have Python 1.5 on my machine. It reminds me a lot of learning Basic 15 years ago. And I know that 14 out of 15 business people I know couldn't "get" Basic. Managers don't want to learn a programming language. They want something simple to get their information. And that means sorting, filtering, and displaying. </ec-replied> <dieter-said> > On the other hand, the FO specification is quite difficult > stuff for me, much more difficult than almost everything, > I know from Python. </dieter-said> <ec-replied> I can't disagree. But I don't find it pertinent to getting the basic tasks managers want to get done. And my premise is that basic XSL can do 95% of what your average business person wants to get done without needing to learn programming. It is the anti-programmer's tool. It is the anti-database administrator's tool. </ec-replied> XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
application idea, Chuck Robey | Thread | RE: Son of XSL for non-programmers, WorldNet |
RE: Appying XSL to dynamic part of , John Hicks | Date | RE: Son of XSL for non-programmers, WorldNet |
Month |