Subject: Re: [xsl] Abbreviated form of XSLT? From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:29:51 +0100 |
> You can say the same for the Relax NG compact syntax (or for WikiML), > but in all the cases, if the compact and XML syntaxes are equivalent, > the argument is rather pointless since your always only a simple > translation away from the other! for the first point, that it's more natural to embed XML fragments into XML than into more conventional languages holds anyway. The second point that it is more easy to process xslt if it's xml is subject to the above criticsm but so is any XML. But that appears to be where XML has proved popular. On the face of it it's just highly constraint sgml-for-beginners with all the more interesting syntax possibilities thrown out, but it has proved rather succesful and I think proved that there is a point to forcing a common verbose syntax. > I think that we are paying too much attention to the syntax. 'twas a question about syntax so the answers are somewhat syntax based:-) Anyway if you think xslt is too verbose to type longhand, go away and write some MathML (or edit the mathml spec:-) then when you come back to xslt you'll be so happy at how concise it is... Yes, there is a place for alternative syntaxes aimed at authoring... David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] Abbreviated form of XSLT?, Eric van der Vlist | Thread | RE: [xsl] Abbreviated form of XSLT?, McNally, David |
RE: [xsl] Using document(), Adam van den Hoven | Date | [xsl] attempting a preceding-siblin, Carrie Kaufman |
Month |