Subject: RE: [xsl] XSL : how to turn <name> into <data elem="name"> From: Peter Flynn <peter@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 23:57:14 +2400 |
At Thursday, 8 February 2001, Dave Pawson wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Michael Kay [mailto:mhkay@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > >> But I am slowly coming to the conclusion that XSLT has a particular >> attraction to those who enjoy typing for its own sake. > >Wasnt' that one of the design goals of xml, from Tim Bray, >It must be readable, even if its verbose ;-) Certainly was: "terseness is of minimal importance". We had some fun with that but I think the expectations were that: a) bandwidth advances and cheap disk space would mean that there would be no need to worry about long element type names "taking up space"; b) the use of syntax-directed editors would mean authors would never actually need to type or read raw XML markup, only their text data content: everything else you pull down from a menu or pop up from a keyclick; c) there would be no need for the kind of shorthand and abbreviations that were built into SGML to reduce the number of keystrokes. So how for have we got? Bear in mind we are talking about an aspect of the usability of XML (and thus XSL too: see my query and Mike Kay's recently about typing). a) We have cheap disk space, at least in Europe and N. America. 20Gb is standard on most new desktop machines. Someone said Fry's have a 72Gb drive for $250. But lack of bandwidth is still a big problem in a lot of places: I have reports even of N. American (mid-west) users who cannot get anything more than 56Kb/s dialup. And in other places it can be ridiculously expensive. b) As I said last week, I'm still amazed at the number of users laboriously typing XSL and other XML character by shining character into NotePad or vi. I downloaded the current version of a popular XML development tool recently, which claimed to do XSL as well as XML and DTDs. Its XSL interface was a plaintext edit window with zero tools apart from syntactic colorization. Either the community consists of latent masochists or the software vendors have not been consulting their usability people. And I've seen developers using element type names up to 100 characters long and over <aDiseaseCaughtFromProlongedExposureToJava>, and happily typing them by hand :-) c) 'nuff said. I wish we'd kept </> for "close the currently open element" just to make the code easier to read for humans. And name groups in element types in element declarations, especially when parameterized. Maybe. So I guess verbosity really doesn't matter. Unless you're a manager looking at improving the productivity of your development or editorial team. ///Peter XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XSL : how to turn <name> , David Carlisle | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSL : how to turn <name> , Michael Beddow |
[xsl] tool to create XSL, Ayelet Kotzer | Date | [xsl] immediately preceding:: / fol, mjyoungblut |
Month |