Re: The suitability of XSL
Liam Quin <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.perl.xml |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 02:38:58PM -0800, Kip Hampton wrote: > Broadly speaking, XSLT is best for transforming deeply nested > document-centric XML (docbook, XHTML) while Perlish, programmatic > solutions (SAX, Twig, XML::Simple, etc) are best for shallower > data-centric XML. Don't forget handling XLM or almost-XML with Perl and regular expressions -- it was a deliberate design goal of XML to make that possible, and although we made the mistake of including CDATA sections, which make it harder, I think we came close. > Most of the heartache (and crappy XSL) I've seen over the years has come > from cases where people [...] try to write big rules > that transform large chunks of the document at once instead of writing > smaller template rules that use selective recursion. Agreed here. For document conversion I prefer a pipeline approach, with lots of little scripts each doing one thing (or a few things). This also works well with "make". Liam -- Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ http://www.holoweb.net/~liam/ * http://www.fromoldbooks.org/ _______________________________________________ Perl-XML mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs