RE: Language choice (was: Re: Interactive XML)
>And that is an even sadder joke. XML was designed for >marking-up documents, not for defining the syntax of >programming languages (even declarative ones). > >Give me F(X) rather than ><FUNCTION><NAME>F</NAME><ARGUMENT>X</ARGUMENT></FUNCTION> >any day of the week. XSL syntax is based on the XML markup syntax. This does not mean that you should have to make your functions as you state above. The true power of the current XSL syntax is that it provides everyone a clear way of seeing the flow objects. I've learned both XSL and DSSSL and found XSL to be a more natural way of marking up a document. While DSSSL will allow you to more complex decision making within the syntax with it's core expression language, XSL is much eaiser for making formatting. If you do need to call a function in a XSL block, you can use the following syntax: <eval> f(x) </eval> As long as f() is defined in the script section, the XSL processor will then look to the script to evaluate f(x) without any new syntax. Maybe I'm just on crack but this seems like a natural extension. ~~ Dan ~~ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
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