Lists Home |
Date Index |
So, according to the previous posts, there are valid reasons for having
XML-based XSLT syntax, and for having a more humane variant.
Question: why can't this be the case, so that we enjoy the benefits of
both? I.e. why can't we have two isomorphic syntaxes for XSLT, both
blessed by a standards body --- similar to the two syntaxes for RelaxNG.
(The blessing is important -- I've heard about enthusiasts attempting
this, but what are their chances of reaching wide adoption?)
Here are a few guesses why:
(1) There are known strong technical reasons such a human-readable syntax
is problematic. (E.g. we cannot guarantee having non-lossy translations
back and forth, even for "a majority" of stylesheets.)
(2) Defining a human-readable syntax is too much work (even if starting
from a contributed draft proposal), and W3C didn't feel enough pressure to
charter a WG for this.
(3) The pressure on W3C is nowhere to come from: the overwhelming majority
of XML programmers couldn't care less.
Is any of the guesses valid? Do I miss another possible explanation?
(I personally hope (2) is the strongest reason...)