[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
RE: [xsl] XLST vs. X#
Subject: RE: [xsl] XLST vs. X# From: "Kienle, Steven C [IT/0200]" <steven.c.kienle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 14:11:42 -0600 |
S Woodside asked: Can something be limited, hard to use, but useful? Although XSLT is not an example of this, the answer is yes. The original personal computers (back in Altair days) were limited and quite often hard to use, but they were still very useful to many people and businesses. The original VCRs could probably be put into the same category, as well. The key is in the implication that if something really is hard to use, limited and useful, then it will be replaced by something easier to use, less limited and even more useful. If MS really buys Mr. Sax's comment, then it certainly makes sense that it would want to be in the "second generation" of XML translation systems. Myself, I think this is a misinterpretation of an off-hand MS executive remark, or a trial balloon put up by MS. More likely they are referring to including some form of IDE/Debugger for XSLT into the Visual Studio .Net framework, something that has already been done by other developers. Steve XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XLST vs. X#, Tobias Reif | Thread | [xsl] simplifying the XSL for an in, leona s |
Re: [xsl] XLST vs. X#, S Woodside | Date | Re: [xsl] XLST vs. X#, Tobias Reif |
Month |