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

Re: [xsl] XSLT Hello World

Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT Hello World
From: Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 21:12:31 +0000

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 8:34 PM, Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Ihe,

Hello Wendell

> You write:
>> It's part of a languages PR that the small subset of the language
>> that is exercised most frequently doesn't contain surprises.
> Assuming we accept this to be true (as I am willing to do), then the
> question in that-other-thread-over-there (not the OP's question, but
> one you raised implicitly) might be recast as whether 'text()' is or
> should be in the part of the language that is exercised most
> frequently.

On a facts of life basis that  question does not arise.

> I don't think it is, or should be, which is part of the reason for
> this-thread-here, and I think that developers who think it is are
> either mistaken (they would be better off using other means to get the
> job done), or they have special reasons and use cases that account for
> their different perception (in which case they're mistaken about how
> typical their use cases are, and they would benefit from a wider
> understanding of where, how and why XSLT is used out here in the big
> world).

What goes into the most frequently used subset is  determined by the
people who use the language not by the people who design, implement or
advocate it. Some examples

What people tend to  write - xsl:for-each
What the designers intended  - xsl:apply-templates

Javascript - designed as a higher order programming language with
support for first class functions and closures.....need I say more

No. We  - the designers, implementers advocates don't get to say what
that most exercised subset is. We can only advocate what it should be.
If your advocacy to the uninitiated entails don't use text() for
getting text then you start out on an uphill battle when the fact that
your language is not imperative and/or class based object-oriented is
often handicap enough.

The reality is that the language goes out in the wild and people will
use it and try and get stuff done and react accordingly.

> In particular, in my view, there's no good case for using 'text()'
> anywhere in an XSLT Hello World,

If my objective is to turn people against the language then for sure
an innocuous looking construct that is misused (to quote Jirka) 99% of
the time is top of my list. OK the 99% shouldn't be taken literally
but I take the the ergonomic/HCI viewpoint (which I have already
expressed) in that situation.

Current Thread