Subject: Re: [xsl] Standards checkers for XSLT From: "Dimitre Novatchev" <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:49:52 -0800 |
forming names seem a little silly to me
the larger question of how to write XSLT for long term maintainability (which is what I assume the OP had in mind when asking about standards for XSLT) is an important and interesting topic for discussion.
It is hardly possible to make/repeat an error coding recursive processing if one is using a standard fold()/str-fold()/iter() function and it is much easier to construct new functions on the fly such as with composition/partial-application.
These are things good to standardize. In this respect, the xsl-list is also doing an admirable job to promote the use of good XSLT problem solving practices. A valuable resource summarizing these is Dave Pawson's XSLT FAQ.
However, it is essential to bear in mind that there can be standards at different levels and not all of them are equally important.
Also, standards that are maintained administratively/by-force may not always bring the expected good results.
Beautification and cosmetics become important when everything beneath the surface is really in order. Even then there's always the danger that a barber may cut the throat of a customer in an effort to make her more beautiful.
To conclude, I am for standardization of general systemic (essential, deep -- as contrasted to shallow, superficial) best-practices/design-patterns.
-- Cheers, Dimitre Novatchev --------------------------------------- Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence. --------------------------------------- To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk ------------------------------------- You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what you're doing is work or play
On 11/25/06, Mulberry Technologies List Owner <xsl-list-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
At 10:32 AM -0800 11/25/06, Dimitre Novatchev wrote: >As much as this may be interesting and useful we both know that there >are much more important things we can be dealing with... > >Let's stop this thread now.
If you are not interested in continuing to participate in the discussion you are welcome to refrain. However, suggesting (especially to one of the several people involved in a discussion) that the thread be stopped seems ... well ... odd.
The original poster asked a reasonable question and there have been several reasoned responses. While debates on the best convention for forming names seem a little silly to me the larger question of how to write XSLT for long term maintainability (which is what I assume the OP had in mind when asking about standards for XSLT) is an important and interesting topic for discussion.
-- Tommie --
====================================================================== B. Tommie Usdin mailto:btusdin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Mulberry Technologies, Inc. http://www.mulberrytech.com 17 West Jefferson Street Phone: 301/315-9631 Suite 207 Direct Line: 301/315-9634 Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 301/315-8285 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in XML and SGML ======================================================================
-- Cheers, Dimitre Novatchev --------------------------------------- Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence. --------------------------------------- To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk ------------------------------------- You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what you're doing is work or play
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Standards checkers for XS, Kamal Bhatt | Thread | Re: [xsl] Standards checkers for XS, Rashmi Rubdi |
Re: [xsl] RDF/OWL Transformation us, Nima Kaviani | Date | Re: [xsl] Transform inline-block ty, David Carlisle |
Month |