[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
"Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@ntlworld.com> wrote:
| I think that the XML-based syntax of XSLT gives significant benefits for
| the parts of the language that are concerned with generating output
| trees.
I disagree. It would have taken genius to devise something even more
cumbersome than xsl:element and xsl:attribute.
(Once the decision had been taken to force tag syntax regardless - at the
time everyone was gungho on XML-izing everything in sight - I can see how
the other parts were shoehorned in. Having painted oneself into a corner,
there are only certain loads of dynamite that get just an exit and not a
collapsed wall too.)
| If you are doing everything using xsl:element and xsl:attribute, rather
| than using literal result elements and attribute value templates, then I
| can see why you find using an XML-based syntax a pain: you're getting
| all of the costs and none of the benefits.
Truth be told, I don't use XSLT much. It doesn't meet the 80/20 split for
what I need.
|
