[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> Joe English scripsit:
>
> > Since the idea of client-side XSLT is pretty much dead in
> > the water, a good case can be made that it doesn't need a
> > single standard either.
>
> Even in a pure server environment, portability counts.
True, that. A month or so ago I had a quick 'n dirty need for SOAP. SOAP
toolkits have done a lot in the past few years to make me stub my toes kicking
boulders in frustration. I'd run into Kafka, a toolkit writtin in XSLT (!)
and on a lark, I tried it. It did what I needed, mostly, and was a breeze to
touch up to add th emissing parts. Using Kafka is easily the least
frustrating experience I've had with SOAP. And it was made possible because
even though the Kafka author is a die-hard .NETter, he used XSLT, and it was
instantly portable to 4Suite.
That having been said, I think implementors should strive towards portability
through cooperation rather than fiat until it is truly clear that it is time
for Standardization (note capital "S"). And once that time comes, I think
standards should be nicely modularized to minimize burdens on users and
implementors.
--
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
XML Data Bindings in Python - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/06/11/py-xml.html
Introducing Examplotron - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-x
mptron/
Charming Jython - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-jython.h
tml
The commons of creativity - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x
-think18.html
A custom-fit career in app development - http://www.adtmag.com/article.asp?id=7
744
|
