Subject: RE: [xsl] XSLT vs Perl From: "Michael Kay" <mhk@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:00:47 -0000 |
> I think Xquery is simpler then xslt by any measure...<snip/> ...XSLT is > lightweight fun, airy and light....though I wouldn't want to > apply it to anything but content related tasks currently; by > comparison Xquery is an industrial strength solution to many > *hard* data problems. I don't quite understand how you come to these conclusions. XQuery 1.0 is a simpler language than XSLT 2.0, without doubt. Its functionality is roughly equal to XSLT 1.0 minus xsl:apply-templates, plus xsl:function. This isn't meant as a criticism. But I find it difficult to see why you think it is capable of tackling harder problems than you would tackle with XSLT. Michael Kay XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] XSLT vs Perl, Jim Fuller | Thread | RE: [xsl] XSLT vs Perl, David Tolpin |
RE: [xsl] restoring document contex, Michael Kay | Date | RE: [xsl] Long string - inserting a, Michael Kay |
Month |