Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT and XML in the same document From: "Andrew Welch" <andrew.j.welch@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 14:25:16 +0100 |
Andrew Welch wrote: > ... > I guess its good that people persist with client side XSLT (as one day > it might be worthwhile), but I reckon its just a hangover from the > original intentions of XML.
I happen to like the original intentions of XML :-)
So do I but things change - look at the node set example, it was apparently a last-minute decision that was reversed at the earliest opportunity. The "produce-output-at-all-costs" design goal of XSLT 1.0 was replaced with "fail-early" principle in 2.0 - the complete opposite.
Namespaces came along after XML and had to be bolted on. The original concept of "XSL" was split into XSLT and XSLFO. XLink and XPointer were thought to be needed but it became apparent that you could model your own links in XML. The <?xml-stylesheet ?> processing instruction was thought to be a good idea, but as soon as you needed to pass in a parameter you were a bit stuck. Tightly coupling your styling to your XML was considered ok then, but I think most people agree now that its A Bad Idea.
Originally XML was expected just to be "SGML for the web" but now its used everywhere, although ironically not that much in place of HTML. Things change. It's fair to say client side transforms have been a failure when compared to the original intentions.
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XSLT and XML in the same , M. David Peterson | Thread | RE: [xsl] XSLT and XML in the same , Michael Kay |
Re: [xsl] [xml] repeating elements, Ignacio Garcia | Date | Re: [xsl] XSLT and XML in the same , Julian Reschke |
Month |