RE: Bits vs APIS - was Excellent Insight on StandardsDevelopme
I don't understand your statement. So you're saying that the XSLT for processing the fairly straightforward RSS 0.91/2.0 and RSS 1.0 formats was geting too complex but you were hoping adding a third [actually fourth when you consider Atom 0.3 and Atom 1.0] format which is more complex than either would somehow make things better. How? -- PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM There is nothing more satisfying that having someone take a shot at you, and miss. ________________________________ From: Dave Pawson [mailto:davep@d...] Sent: Sun 11/14/2004 1:32 AM To: Dare Obasanjo Cc: Michael Champion; xml-dev@l... Subject: RE: Bits vs APIS - was Excellent Insight on StandardsDevelopment vs Invention On Sat, 2004-11-13 at 21:46, Dare Obasanjo wrote: With RSS 0.91/2.0 & RSS 1.0, a feed consumer could write fairly straightforward code to parse either format with just a few if...else blocks to deal with the minor differences (e.g. in RSS 1.0 the <item> elements are not a child of <channel>). Now with adding Atom 0.3 and then Atom 1.0 to the mix, it is more likely that a syndication consumer would just want some API that hides the syntactical variaations of all the various XML syndication formats instead of dealing with each one individually using an XML API. If authors would stick to either of the schema's that would be a valid statement Dare. By the time I got up to about 10 feeds, the XSLT is becoming really horrible, and needs to be namespace agnostic. The number of variations on a theme made reasonable processing with xslt just about impossible. Hence I was hopeful of a schema for Atom. -- Regards DaveP. XSLT&Docbook FAQ http://www.dpawson.co.uk/xsl
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format