[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date]

Re: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists as tables)


Subject: Re: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists as tables)
From: pandeng@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Steve Schafer)
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 17:12:17 GMT

On Fri, 15 Oct 1999 09:51:35 +0100 (BST), you wrote:

>Ironic, isn't it. The whole XSL thing started because people said
>DSSSL's Lisp was "just too wierd for most programmers".

I always found that argument hard to swallow. Lisp/Scheme is so simple
that any _programmer_ should be able to pick up enough of it to do
anything required for DSSSL within a week. Of course, there are plenty
of programming dilettantes out there who can't be bothered to learn
anything new, but if XSL is aimed at them, then it is pretty much by
definition going to be unsuitable for "professional" use. Let's face
it: Document layout is a non-trivial exercise. Any attempt to dumb it
down to the point that anybody can use it without having to think
about what they're doing means that it won't be able to accomplish
much.

Look at the situation with JavaScript: There are numerous web sites
where people can download snippets of JavaScript which can be used to
produce this or that effect on their web pages. No need to actually
_understand_ any of that code--just cut and paste, fill in a few
blanks, and off you go. Is that the direction we're headed in with
XSL/XSLT? If so, let me off at the next stop.

>I have never met anyone who liked CSS.

You can add me to your list as one more data point. :) I probably
wouldn't dislike it so much if the browser vendors actually
implemented it in a consistent way.

-Steve Schafer


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list



Current Thread
Keywords
xsl