Subject: Re: XSL controversy From: Marcus Carr <mrc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 09 Aug 1999 10:41:15 +1000 |
James Clark wrote: > There are many, real-world transformation problems for which XSLT is not > the right tool. I would never claim that XSLT is the one true > transformation language for XML. Whether it's a good choice for a > particular transformation problem depends on a number of factors, > including the following. My thanks for posting this, James. Too often it is difficult to get such an objective position from someone as close to the coalface as you are. I (and I'm sure others) sometimes find it difficult to come to a decision about new technology because I feel that if have to test-drive it to know what it's really suited for. Information about transformations that XSLT is not particularly suited to tend to carry more credibility than use-cases where people have managed to get the right tesults out of arguably the wrong technology. PS - I'm not pro- or anti- anything - I just don't get enough time to play, so rely on the opinions of others more than I would like to. -- Regards, Marcus Carr email: mrc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ___________________________________________________________________ Allette Systems (Australia) www: http://www.allette.com.au ___________________________________________________________________ "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Einstein XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: XSL controversy, Denys Duchier | Thread | RE: XSL controversy, Maxime Levesque |
RE: XSL controversy, James Robertson | Date | fo:page-sequence and fo:sequence-sp, Steve Schafer |
Month |