Subject: [xsl] Re: questions about XSLT philosophy: how much is too much? From: "Dimitre Novatchev" <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 07:07:17 +0100 |
"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0303191933140.479-100000@xxxxxxx > On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Michael Kay wrote: > > > But surely a newcomer to any language should be surprised and delighted > > to discover the unexpected ways that experienced users are exploiting > > the technology? > > not really -- not when i'm trying to learn how to use it properly for > the first time. > > part of what makes a language easily learned is to see it being > used in a way that seems to match its basic design. with XSLT, > that's to see it used functionally. nothing makes a language > harder to get a grip on than to see it being manhandled to solve > problems that don't seem "natural" for that language. How can a newcomer judge what is the "basic design" and what is "natural" for a language? The fact that you may be experiencing difficulties in understanding these does not mean that the language is used unnaturally. Or shall we start a witch hunt because we do not understand how someone is using the language and proclaim this use as "unnatural"? As DavidC put it: 'Any problem for which an answer can be posted in a reasonably sized email message is hardly pushing the bounds is it? Anything in that range is "healthy use in unexpected areas" rather than using an "inappropriate hammer".' I think a language would be really boring if the limits of what it can or cannot do were strictly defined. Fortunately XSLT is not such a language. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] questions about XSLT phil, Robert P. J. Day | Thread | Re: [xsl] Re: questions about XSLT , Robert P. J. Day |
Re: [xsl] seriously trivial questio, G. Ken Holman | Date | Re: [xsl] Adding structure to text , Simon Kelly |
Month |