[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
Re: More XSL Discussion
Subject: Re: More XSL Discussion From: Sean Mc Grath <digitome@xxxxxx> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 17:14:59 GMT |
At 10:17 25/02/98 -0500, you wrote: >Sean Mc Grath wrote: >> >> So what are you saying? That doing this: >> >> <!-- XSL based report writer written in two seconds. Understandable >> in one second, and a lot easier to write, maintain and run than >> an equivalent perl, python, omnimark, c++, scheme, tcl, adept program >> would ever be --> >> <element type = "chapter"> >> <element type = "sect1"> >> <target-element type = "title"> >> println (...) >> >> is an abuse of XSL? [Paul Prescod] >No. It is simply not XSL. XSL specifies a mapping from an input to an >output. No matter how interesting one half or the other may be, that >half is *not XSL* without the other half. What you have above is an >XSL-like language for report writing -- which is probably quite >useful...it just isn't XSL. I contend it is XSL. There is nothing in the spec. that I can see that says "you must have a flow object". Quite right too IMHO. I further contend that using, say, msxsl (yes, I know it is only a technology preview of a moving target) without flow objects to munge XML is pretty darn useful. It has already saved me many hours of tedium doing reports/queries/harvesting etc. of XML docs. If noone else finds XSL very useful for doing this sort of thing then I have clearly missed out on some excellent tools you guys have that I do not! XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: More XSL Discussion, James K. Tauber | Thread | Re: More XSL Discussion, Paul Prescod |
Re: More XSL Discussion, Paul Prescod | Date | RE: More XSL Discussion, Jonathan Marsh |
Month |