Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT vs Perl From: David Tolpin <dvd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 18:12:51 +0400 (AMT) |
> > I just think that XSLT 2.0 is very close to Perl, Python and Ruby, > > just not yet as mature. What's the need for one more language in > > this family? > > > > use what you feel comfortable. some of us like well-formedness and > validity. Much of the syntax of XSLT 2.0 is not XML syntax. Neither regular expressions nor XPath 2.0 is. A language with consistent parser gives more use of non-xml well-formedness and validity than a schema for the XML part of XSLT 2.0 > > are you simply trolling, or do you really have a point? No, I am not trolling. I've spent time reading the spec. I see that it is just another scripting language with very little left of the good things contained in the original idea of XSLT. There were achievements and flaws in XSLT 1.0. An elegant tool to manipulate XML infosets is an achievement. Inconsistencies in the syntax of both XPath and XSLT ar flaws. Instead of fixing flaws and securing achievements by producing a probably source-incompatible but more consistent and easy to use version 2, the committee has developed a specification which is beyond my personal capabilities to learn and use. It can be my fault, but I don't see what can be made easier or at least with comparable easiness using XSLT 2.0 than with any of other well-developed scripting languages currently widely deployed. David Tolpin http://davidashen.net/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XSLT vs Perl, Robert Koberg | Thread | RE: [xsl] XSLT vs Perl, Michael Kay |
RE: [xsl] Problem turning a xml str, Michael Kay | Date | RE: [xsl] FO Processor choice, Andrew Welch |
Month |