RE: Hello XQuery ... Goodbye XSLT?
Jonathan Robie wrote: >I actually think a keyword syntax for XSLT might be more accessible for many programmers. To echo an earlier point in this thread, I think it's the recursion and non-procedural approach that trips up programmers accustomed to the most popular general-purpose programming languages, and replacing some of the start- and end-tags with curly braces won't change that. XSLT's XML format was one of its huge advantages over DSSSL, which it effectively replaced the way XML replaced SGML (and DSSSL had far less success than SGML). It's much easier to read "</xsl:if></xsl:for-each></xsl:if></xsl:variable>" and know exactly what kinds of structures are being ended, in what order, than to look at "))))" and know the same thing. Another great advantage of an XML-based syntax is that it's so easy to automate the manipulation of resources expressed in that syntax. Outside of XSLT, I can't think of another language in which it's so easy to write programs that read and manipulate other programs written in the same language, and that includes LISP and Scheme (")))))))...."). Many, many production applications out there have automated the reading and writing of XSLT stylesheets as part of their workflow. I prefer RNC to RNG, but if I want to automate the manipulation of RNC files, I'm going to trang them to RNG files first. I wouldn't even look at a non-XML representation of XSLT until there was a conversion tool as reliable as trang to go with it. Bob DuCharme www.snee.com/bob <bob@ snee.com> weblog on linking-related topics: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/1191
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