Subject: Re: The Lazy Syntax for XSLT, or TLSX From: Nicole Gustas <ngustas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 10:55:18 -0500 |
"Beckers, Marc" wrote: > Unless you know no programming language to start with. > Speaking as a technical writer, moving from DTP to Web publishing > means that we must concern ourselves with stylesheet languages - > an additional, programming-like step in the documentation production > process. > Once you have written some XML, XSL is relatively easy to learn, even > if some consider it "verbose" (which, paradoxically, may be the reason > for it being easy to learn and read). I would hate to see XSL dragged > over-proportionately towards the "programmers' end" of the Web. I have to agree with Marc here. I haven't done any programming, and XML is the closest I've come so far. I've just gotten a handle on it, and I think it's because it's so verbose that I can make more sense of it. The idea of having an "XSL shorthand" that one could use after she got up to speed in it isn't a bad idea - but I think it would be a while before I could hack that. - Nikki XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: The Lazy Syntax for XSLT, or TL, Beckers, Marc | Thread | RE: The Lazy Syntax for XSLT, or TL, sara . mitchell |
XSLT and memory usage, Martin Sevigny | Date | RE: Updated XSL support in IE5?, Chris Bayes |
Month |