Subject: Re: [xsl] LINQ to XML versus XSLT From: Michael Ludwig <mlu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:58:18 +0200 |
"Scott" == Scott Trenda <Scott.Trenda@xxxxxxxx> writes:
Scott> My reply is getting a little off-topic, but on the same Scott> note, why haven't we seen a widely-used XML-based HTML Scott> preprocessor language yet?
Pre-processors are just bad. (If you mean macro processors, that is. If you mean transformation languages, such as XSLT, then you have the answer to your own question.)
PHP, which stands for "Pretty Home Page", was surnamed "PHP HTML Preprocessor" (a so-called recursive acronym, like GNU) when it was a couple of years old, obviously in an effort to give it a more serious appeal.
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] LINQ to XML versus XSLT, Houghton,Andrew | Thread | Re: [xsl] LINQ to XML versus XSLT, Colin Paul Adams |
Re: [xsl] LINQ to XML versus XSLT, Andrew Welch | Date | Re: [xsl] LINQ to XML versus XSLT, Colin Paul Adams |
Month |