Re: <xsl:stylesheet xmlns...

Subject: Re: <xsl:stylesheet xmlns...
From: Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 17:06:47 -0700
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Sebastian Rahtz 

>  > it in the real life. "Shedule the disaster".
>  > This has been invented and described 
>  > by Brooks 30 years ago and I don't think 
>  > anything has changed since then.
> 
> I don't think we read Brooks as a _manual_ for software engineering...

And I think it is bad we don't read it as such.

Even since then we got some better  solutions / ways 
to  'write software fast' , 'write software cheap' and 
some other manuals - the Brook's book is still a 
*manual*  if the goal is to "write 'good' software".

For example, "Practical programming" (?) by Kernighan 
alsmost agrees with Brooks in everything Brooks said ;-)

> and you don't seem to believe in modelling before coding? 

What do you mean by modelling? If you mean that before 
writing the interpreter for some language you should 
spend some time writing the usecases to see how 
good will your ( not yet written ) interpreter be with 
the 'real-life tasks' and you call *this* modelling - 
I don't understand  how can this stage be skipped ;-)

But I also for sure understand that this stage can not 
replace beta-testing, when number of usecases is 
produced by more than one man drawing some 
hypotetical code samples on the paper ;-)

In fact the most efficient practice should be writing tonns of 
usecases in parallel with writing the interpreter itself when 
one part will influence another iteratively. I doubt it happened
this way - that's why it takes so long with xslt.

> you dont think formal specifications can prove anything?
 
In general - no. I don't think. I never remember at least one 
formal spec which survived the prototype ( or when it 
survived that meant that the structure was  producing 
shitty solution ).

>  > Hmm... I think that what I'm doing is explaning 
>  > that that there are  some ways other than 
>  > W3C dogmats.

> no disagreement there. although the W3C is simply the sum of its
> members. I do not see any sign that XSLT was unduly influenced by W3C
> staff members

Hm. What is that "XSLT' ? ;-) If you remember,  at the beginning 
there was XSL. The shift from XSL to XSLT and XSL FO was influenced 
by W3C.  Could this be counted as a "sign that XSLT was unduly 
influenced by W3C staff members" ? ;-)
 
>  >  And I'm questioning some of 
>  > W3C dogmats ( like 'no-side effect' ).
> 
> unfair. thats not a W3C dogma. probably more from your hero James
> Clark!

I doubt the 1-1 binding ( insead of more smart model with 1-1 
binding  as a simple case ) is James Clark's dogma.
But actually I don't care *who* is behind the dogma ;-)

If what you are saying is true and all the craziness XML 
has is from James Clark - let's fire  him and get the 
consistent XML specs then ;-)

Something tells me that firing James Clark  will have 
very much opposite effect on XML ;-)

>  > > XSLT is still new
>  > 
>  > After 5 years of development it is still new? 
> 
> where does your figure of 5 years come from? 

Some time ago I saw it on one of the lists.  I forgot the 
rationale ( but there was some explanation why 5 years ).

>  if you accept that its
> DSSSL, its a lot more; if its XSL, its much less.

I'l say we should take the DSSSL , but something 
tells me this is not 'fair'. 

>  > Hm. I may be too cynical, but I think that because 
>  > James Clark has dropped XT there will be no XSLT 2.0
>  > And I doubt there will even be XSLT 1.1  ;-)
> 
> well, I predict the demise of W3C in a couple of years, come to
> that.  I don't think T B-L's tenuous grasp can hold it together for ever.

I constantly predict the same. There is no question for me that W3C 
have failed already.
 
>  > standards. Situation with SQL is that mySQL 
>  > is powering  most of the boxes on the planet.
> 
> have you mentioned that to Oracle?

Could be oversimpilification and mistake, I'm sorry - 
I should be more accurate here. My point was that  - well  -
at least some time ago the statistics for mySQL / MSQL 
was crazy and they are still doing *very*  well even they 
are not  SQL at all  ;-)
 
>  > to make the next step. In your universe the 
>  > 'next step'  is to pray for XSLT 2.0 to 'fix' 
>  > some craziness
> 
> XSLT 2.0 is not coming to come from God. It will come from a working
> group, which anyone who cares enough can get themselves on. 

No. *Not* anyone who cares.
 
>  > I again feel I'm 
>  > off-topic generator. This is all frustrating.
> 
> have a beer and read Harry Potter. it wil make you feel better

Ahh .. instead of this reasonable activity I again tried to explain  
"the truth as I see it". Because the truth is somehow ugly,  
I have to use the politically incorrect statement which may 
hirt Sebastian ( sorry if it did ) and finaly I got the yet another 
"shut up" from some stranger  who don't give a shit to 
explain *why* should I listen to his 'shut up'. Somehow 
different picture ....

Maybe it is realy time for me to unsubscribe, like many others 
'who really care about XSLT'  already did?  ;-)  Remember 
Oren?  Clark? Started with XSLT. Wrote some nice code. 
Realized something. Unsubscribed from the list. ;-)

Rgds.Paul.




 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list


Current Thread