[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi.
> So, according to the previous posts, there are valid reasons for having
> XML-based XSLT syntax, and for having a more humane variant.
Not sure I agree, see below:
> Question: why can't this be the case, so that we enjoy the benefits of
> both?
> Here are a few guesses why:
> (snip)...
> (3) The pressure on W3C is nowhere to come from: the overwhelming
> majority of XML programmers couldn't care less.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to cast a vote of agreement with your third
guess. XSL is one of the primary technologies I use at my current job,
and I often trade notes with other developers who have used XSL enough to
really hit issues. This turns out to be everyone I've talked to with
substantial XSL experience...
Though perspective differ, there are several classes of problems and
complaints that seem to pop-up time and again. I've never heard lack of a
shorthand variant mentioned until now. I can add my own personal opinion
that as a regular XSL user, this doesn't even really appeal to me much.
Maybe I'm biased though, because I really like the XML syntax for RelaxNG
better as well.
------------>Nathan
> Vladimir
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
>
--
.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:.
|
