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

RE: SGML complexity

• From: <juanrgonzaleza@c...>
• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 01:33:48 -0700 (PDT)

natyoung - Artizen at Cisco\ said:
>
>
>> >
>> > As far as I can tell there are only three substantive points:
>> >
>> >  - XML is more verbose than some other markup languages
>> >  - XSL may not be the best choice for every programming task
>> >  - XSL may or may not be a programming language
>> >
>> > The first two points are widely accepted.
>>
>> Then is not widely accepted that "XSL may or may not be a programming
>> language"?
>
> Do you honestly not understand the distinction between the first two
> items and the last one?  Or are you baiting me?  I can't tell, and I
> find your communication style very abrasive.  Please forgive me if I'm
> taking offense when I shouldn't be.

I will try to be more explicit. You said,

> 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

Therefore, i understand that you state that community widely accepts that
XML is more verbose than... and that XSL may be no the best choice for...

I can agree with these statements. I do not know if it is strictly true
because you provided no objective data supporting your claim -not
definition of 'widely' etc.-. But i can live that way...

You do not claim that the third point is widely accepted, therefore i
think that either you simply omit it or you are assuring us that the third
point is not widely accepted. You message is ambiguous at this point and
reason for my query. The third point was:

>  - XSL may or may not be a programming language

Who in the community does not accept that EITHER XSL is a programming
language OR is not?

I can see authors claiming it is -see refs below- and i can see people
claiming it is not once _certain_ definition of PL is put on the table. By
XSL i assume that you refer to the T part (XSLT) and not to formating
language XSL-FO. But i know nobody that does not accept that XSL may OR
may not be a programming language, that was just you wrote...

<REFs title="XSLT considered a PL">
http://www.xsltblog.com/archives/xml_xslt_xquery_and_declaritve_programming/index.html

http://www.topxml.com/xsl/articles/fp/

http://www.idealliance.org/papers/xml2001/papers/html/05-03-06.html

http://fxsl.sourceforge.net/articles/xslCalculator/The%20FXSL%20Calculator.html

http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-xslrecur/

http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-debugxs.html
</REFs>

> ---->N
>
>> Interesting...
>>
>> > ------------>N
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> .:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:.
>> _.:||:._.:
>> > ||:.
>> >
>> > Nathan Young
>> > Cisco.com->Interface Development
>> > A: ncy1717
>> > E: natyoung@c...


Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: SGML complexity
    • From: "bryan rasmussen" <rasmussen.bryan@g...>

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