OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] re: XML SIG 17 September: Elliotte Rusty Harold onWhat's W

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]


first off thanks for taking the time to try out o:XML - with so many new
XML projects starting up all the time i find it difficult to stay on top
of things myself.

I agree with you that o:XML is verbose, but your critisism really applies
to XML as such. And there are ways to avoid having to do a lot of typing,
by the use of DTD/schema aware XML editors and suchlike. And just imagine
what could be done with a purpose-built o:XML (or XSLT for that case) IDE!

If you compare reading and generating XML in say Java or C++ with
doing the same thing in o:XML, it's the traditional languages that are
verbose - just try creating a couple of elements with attributes using DOM
or SAX and you will see what I mean!

Verbosity is one of the things that initially put me off XSLT (though now
i'm a self-confessed convert), and i tried to make o:XML as condensed as
possible. Take for example an XSLT named template (which is essentially
a procedure, albeit without side effects):

<xsl:template name="foo">
<xsl:param name="arg"/>
.. do something ..

all good so far. but the template call is a bit over the top:

<xsl:call-template name="foo">
<xsl:with-param name="arg" select="value"/>

in o:XML you'd define a procedure in a similar way:

<o:procedure name="foo">
<o:param name="arg"/>
.. do something ..

which is called with:

<foo arg="value"/>

also i see many uses of a language like o:XML where the code is not typed,
but generated. And since it's all XML, it can then be further transformed,
translated, embedded...

kind regards,


Martin Klang
Alpha Plus Technology Ltd


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS