Subject: RE: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable? (was: N : M transformation) From: "bryan" <bry@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 20:41:54 +0100 |
>Actually, as we get closer to finishing, I'm getting more and more >convinced that people will find the stronger typing useful, although I >was very sceptical when we started. Yes, XML Schema is a pig, but it >turns out you can live with it if you avoid looking at it too closely, >and that is what large numbers of people are in fact doing. Now one of the things that guides me is the desire to constantly improve myself as a programmer (which shouldn't be too hard to do) and the working theory I was following on this course of self-improvement was to try as much as possible to understand the constituent parts of what I was working with (which is getting harder and harder to do instead of easier), although my attempts at understanding no doubt have led to many a dim-witted misstep and post on this self-same list. I see from the statement at the top of this email's body that my theory was wrong, in the eventuality of having to work with XSDL. This is of course a great relief to me as I have fallen prey to such an eventuality in the past and concluded from too close a perusal of the language that XSD was a pig; a great worriment to me as I was taught that SOP, swine-oriented programming, was architecturally unsound. Of course it could be in a year that I have to eat my words, and publicly admit ham to be a tasty food product. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable, David Carlisle | Thread | [xsl] Variable or Query for Speed, Peter Eschenbrenner |
RE: RE: RE: [xsl] XPath question, cknell | Date | RE: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable, Elliotte Rusty Harol |
Month |