Paul Prescod wrote:
Do you know whether Indelv's browser matches the latest specification?
Claims support for the 16 Dec 98 draft.
Anyhow, I think that for someone learning the details of the XSL
specificaiton a batch, command-oriented process is really best. You are
doing an XML->XML transform first and an XML->display format second. You
should learn and understand one before moving on to the other. Converting
to HTML and viewing the HTML *in a text editor* is the best way to get
started.
I certainly agree. And I'm hearing from you that I must compile and
use a command line program to "get started" with this language
designed (among other things) to appeal to non-programmers. Is my
point so obscure?
I can't believe that this is really so hard with Code Warrior. On a PC you
open up your text editor and there is usually a menu item called "run
command line" You type in a command line and it just works. I mean you've
got to be willing to go halfway with us.
Sure. Just be aware that for every potential user who is comfortable
with compiling and using console apps, there are easily dozens - if
not hundreds or thousands - of civilians who aren't. With XSL under
attack as difficult - by programmers no less - this appears to me to
be a major liability.
> Somebody slap an HTML form UI on XP/XT and whatever else is necessary
> to make XSL work.
I'm sorry but encouraging users -- especially knowledgable users like
yourself -- to use cut and paste into an HTML form as a UI for XSL is a
little perverse.
Why is it any different from using a Web form to access an SP-driven
validator, like the W3C's or WDG's services? Very popular, by the
way. Non-casual users who determine the service to be valuable this
way can (and do) proceed to install similar locally, with the help of
a resident sysadmin type (or purchase commercial GUI software with
equivalent functionality).
I'm not talking about encouraging this as a production vehicle, but
as a learning tool, a free sample, a test drive. It's good marketing.
People who have a "successful" experience with the toy front end will
be motivated to dust off their programmer hats (or find a programmer)
to integrate the stuff into their production environments for real
work.
I hate to invoke stereotypes of Mac users but you seem to be begging for
it. It seems you'd rather waste an hour a day cutting and pasting instead
of a single hour figuring out how to use the tools at your disposal.
I've spent more than a few hours. I am not a programmer. But forget
about me for a moment - I'll keep dutifully banging my head on the
wall until I like it (or more likely, until I am pulled away by
something else, and drop XSL for a few more weeks or months).
Would you prefer that everybody who's less comfortable than I am with
programmer's tools uses IE5 as a "reference" GUI for (MS)XSL? That's
what will happen if more zealously conformant software is not made
equally accessible.
> At a minimum, let users provide the URLs of XML
> documents linked to XSL stylesheets (or provide the PI manually), and
> return the result, whether XHTML, FOs, or some other flavor of XML.
Who runs this service?
Since it's not likely to be of much use as a production tool, I
wouldn't be concerned about system resources - shut it off if so. I'd
volunteer Verso, but I think it might be better if a party more
committed to XSL could take it on, as it would likely be kept most
up-to-date and well-annotated/linked that way.
I'll bet that the XML.com folk could be persuaded to add such as a
complement to their simple "RUWF" toy:
http://www.xml.com/xml/pub/tools/ruwf/check.html . I suppose you
don't agree that that was worth the development effort either?
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list