Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Michael and Marcus, hello. On 30 May 2022, at 12:02, Michael Kay wrote: > Lots of people have invented non-XML syntaxes for XSLT; they have all died a quiet death without achieving any signfiicant adoption. And I was one such [1], and yes, 'a quiet death' is accurate. [1] https://nxg.me.uk/dist/lx/ > I think there are a number of reasons: > > (a) the use of XML syntax is off-putting to beginners but no problem at all to experienced users I wouldn't say I'm a heavy user of XSLT, but I've been I suppose a moderately sophisticated user of it for a number of years, since XML was new. I still hate the syntax, and it sets my teeth on edge every time I come near it. The syntax makes it relatively easy to include literal XML elements in the output document (and that's a relatively rare requirement, for the uses I put it to), but that's the only good thing I can think of to say about the choice of XML for the syntax of XSLT. I appreciate not everyone has this same reaction to it. > (b) using a preprocessor makes development a lot more complicated - diagnostics are less helpful, and helpful diagnostics are much more important to developers than pretty syntax. For that very reason, the Lx thing I put together includes a (Java) XMLReader implementation which generates SAX events directly from the input syntax, so there was no preprocessing, and the line numbers were correct. Ah, the loneliness of an itch no-one else has.... Best wishes, Norman -- Norman Gray : https://nxg.me.uk SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
