RE: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable? (was: N : M transformation)

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:

Current Thread