Subject: Re: [xsl] A Question **TO** XSLT Newbies From: Andrew Watt <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 20:20:15 +0100 |
I would have agreed with you a few months ago. Now with the help of people on this list (thanks!) I feel like I've come a lot closer to mastering it. Maybe I should write an article ;-)
Taking that into account, I agree. XPath is WAY harder to grok than XSLT.
The online documentation is way poor (the XSLT spec is pretty good, the XPath spec is shite).
A lot of the resources about XSLT don't make it clear where the line between something being an XPath problem and an XSLT problem is drawn.
XPath seems to have all kinds of special cases.
The syntax is totally overloaded
... I feel like the designers wanted something simple but instead it just looks simple and really is complex. Debugging XPath is very hard.
To gripe a little badly, the XPath section in the XSLT FAQ isn't the strongest section ...
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] A Question **TO** XSLT Ne, S Woodside | Thread | Re: [xsl] xpath trickery (was A Que, S Woodside |
RE: [xsl] Passing in a node value, Passin, Tom | Date | Re: [xsl] A Question **TO** XSLT Ne, Deborah Aleyne Lapey |
Month |