Subject: RE: The Lazy Syntax for XSLT, or TLSX From: sara.mitchell@xxxxxxxxx Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:30:28 -0500 |
And here's a third vote, again from a technical writer. The verboseness is part of the reason it is easy to understand to 'nonprogrammers'. Sara Mitchell > "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. >Nicole Gustas wrote: > > 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 > 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, Nicole Gustas | Thread | RE: The Lazy Syntax for XSLT, or TL, Jeff Lansing |
Entity references in xml output, Zsolt Czinkos | Date | translate function & hex data, Paul Bell |
Month |