Re: [xml-dev] SGML complexity

["bryan rasmussen" <rasmussen.bryan@gmail.com>]

Don't listen to me! Hitler is still an important programming language
with lots to offer the world! I can't believe this thread has lasted
this long, taken up hundreds of miles of monitorspace, surfeited the
cyberatmosphere with trollery of inferior quality and it is only now
that we are equipped to argue the benefits of programming with Hitler
as opposed to XSLT and Lisp with backwards regression (an important
concept in itself that I will later explain in full gory.)


Thank you,
Bryan Rasmussen

Postscript: I don't really like Postscript or Hitler for that matter.
No S-Expressions.




On 9/12/06, bryan rasmussen <rasmussen.bryan@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>... this is not a lack of functionality of XSLT, it is a lack
> > > of functionality of the navigator ;
> >
> > So far as i know XSLT was designed to be a -programming- language for
> > static transformations:
> >
> > [http://www.xml.com/pub/a/1999/05/xsl/xslconsidered_1.html?page=3].
> >
> > Therefore, you cannot change the DOM in a full dinamical way as i can do
> > today with a JS linked to a (X)HTML doc. XSLT is lacking functionality
> > already available on JS, PHP, ASP, and the next.
>
> You know what other domain specific languages can't change the DOM
> dynamically. Postscript, that's who!!
>
> Also Hitler cannot change the DOM dynamically. Why do people continue
> to use Postscript and Hitler to do things that they were designed to
> do, when they can't do things they weren't designed to do? Just
> poopyheads I guess.
>
> Mr. Important Authority says that it is wrong. What do you got to say
> to that huh? Do you DARE to argue against Mr. Important Authority.
> Respect my linking to Mr. Important Authority dammit, you ivory tower
> pointyheaded blah blahs!
>
>
> Cheers,
> Bryan Rasmussen
>