Re: The suitability of XSL

From: Peter T Cash <[email protected]>
> Sorry, but I can't resist a good old-fashioned religious flamewar. 8)

:-))

> Anyway, I guess my point is that a toolbox that contains more than just 
> one kind of tool is what you should want to have. You shouldn't be 
> carrying around a toolbox that just contains a very complete selection of 
> hammers. 

This is actually my biggest problem with XSLT. Its design is a direct 
result of "the only thing I have is a hammer, so everything'd beter 
look like nails". That is, the only thing I have is a XML parser so 
everything should be XML. Which is silly. XML is something that, 
apart from simple examples, should be generated, not written.
It's simply too talkative and too picky to be convenient to write. 
Especially if the XML you are supposed to write mixes XML that's to 
be matches, xml that is to be output and xml that's actually 
commands/statements/rules (or whatever you want to call them) that 
control what and how to transform.
The basic idea of matching and transforming is good, the 
implementation is awful.

Jenda
===== [email protected] === http://Jenda.Krynicky.cz =====
When it comes to wine, women and song, wizards are allowed 
to get drunk and croon as much as they like.
	-- Terry Pratchett in Sourcery

_______________________________________________
Perl-XML mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs