[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Didier,
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 ..
</xsl:template>
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"/>
</xsl:call-template>
in o:XML you'd define a procedure in a similar way:
<o:procedure name="foo">
<o:param name="arg"/>
.. do something ..
</o:procedure>
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,
/m
Martin Klang
Alpha Plus Technology Ltd
|
