[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> Of all the things beginners have difficulty with I'd expect that
> telling them they need an explicit function call to convert a RTF to
> a node set ranks low in complexity compared to just explaining
> XSLT's functional nature or even worse explaining the static and
> strong typing rules of XSLT 2.0.
The way I see things, in a first phase most people just won't use the
typing features of XSLT 2.0 and just use it as a better XSLT 1.0. I
may be wrong. Time will tell.
Regarding the difficulties, I agree, but it's in general easier to
teach a language that is well-designed rather than one that is not. So
teaching XSLT's functional nature may be difficult, but at least it is
based on sound concepts. RTFs are not. In passing, you can use XSLT in
a very imperative style, and many people just use it this way.
-Erik
|
