[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: SGML complexity

• From: "bryan rasmussen" <rasmussen.bryan@g...>
• To: "juanrgonzaleza@c..." <juanrgonzaleza@c...>
• Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:30:30 +0200

>
> > The first two points are widely accepted.
>
> And the points were:
>
> >  - XML is more verbose than some other markup languages
> >  - XSL may not be the best choice for every programming task

>The third point was:
>
> >  - XSL may or may not be a programming language

Well, that may not be a programming language would certainly explain
why in point two it may not be the best choice for every programming
task.

So one possible set of arguments - with conclusions - could be

1. XSL may or may not be a programming language -> conclusion: XSL is
not a programming language
2. XSL may not be the best choice for every programming task -> XSL
may be the best choice for every programming task -> conclusion: XSL
is the best choice for every programming task

1+ 2->conclusion: XSL, which is not a programming language, is the
best choice for every programming task.

That's canonical. not as in relating to established rules, but rather
as in having the shape of a canon.


Cheers,
Bryan Rasmussen

• References:
  • RE: SGML complexity
    • From: "Nathan Young -X \(natyoung - Artizen at Cisco\)" <natyoung@c...>
  • RE: SGML complexity
    • From: <juanrgonzaleza@c...>