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

Re: [xsl] Standards checkers for XSLT


Subject: Re: [xsl] Standards checkers for XSLT
From: "Dimitre Novatchev" <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:49:52 -0800

While debates on the best convention for
forming names seem a little silly to me

Fully agree.


 the larger question of how
to write XSLT for long term maintainability (which is what I assume
the OP had in mind when asking about standards for XSLT) is an important
and interesting topic for discussion.

Absolutely so.


And why not suggest using a standard function library?

EXSLT and why not FXSL?


It is hardly possible to make/repeat an error coding recursive processing if one is using a standard fold()/str-fold()/iter() function and it is much easier to construct new functions on the fly such as with composition/partial-application.

Added the much higher level of abstraction.

These are things good to standardize. In this respect, the xsl-list is
also doing an admirable job to promote the use of good XSLT problem
solving practices. A valuable resource summarizing these is Dave
Pawson's XSLT FAQ.

However, it is essential to bear in mind that there can be standards
at different levels and not all of them are equally important.

Also, standards that are maintained administratively/by-force may not
always bring the expected good results.

Beautification and cosmetics become important when everything beneath
the surface is really in order. Even then there's always the danger
that a barber may cut the throat of a customer in an effort to make
her more beautiful.

To conclude, I am for standardization of general systemic (essential,
deep -- as contrasted to shallow, superficial)
best-practices/design-patterns.


-- Cheers, Dimitre Novatchev --------------------------------------- Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence. --------------------------------------- To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk ------------------------------------- You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what you're doing is work or play







On 11/25/06, Mulberry Technologies List Owner
<xsl-list-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
At 10:32 AM -0800 11/25/06, Dimitre Novatchev wrote:
>As much as this may be interesting and useful we both know that there
>are much more important things we can be dealing with...
>
>Let's stop this thread now.

If you are not interested in continuing to participate in the discussion
you are welcome to refrain. However, suggesting (especially to one of
the several people involved in a discussion) that the thread be stopped
seems ... well ... odd.

The original poster asked a reasonable question and there have been
several reasoned responses. While debates on the best convention for
forming names seem a little silly to me the larger question of how
to write XSLT for long term maintainability (which is what I assume
the OP had in mind when asking about standards for XSLT) is an important
and interesting topic for discussion.

-- Tommie
--

======================================================================
B. Tommie Usdin                        mailto:btusdin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mulberry Technologies, Inc.                http://www.mulberrytech.com
17 West Jefferson Street                           Phone: 301/315-9631
Suite 207                                    Direct Line: 301/315-9634
Rockville, MD  20850                                 Fax: 301/315-8285
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in XML and SGML
======================================================================




--
Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev
---------------------------------------
Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence.
---------------------------------------
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk
-------------------------------------
You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what
you're doing is work or play


Current Thread
Keywords