Re: Comments on XSL Draft

ray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

> [a number of thoughtful criticisms of the XSL draft]

This one will run and run.  There are two main reasons I think trying
a string-based pattern syntax makes sense:

* We had a lot of feedback on 'A Proposal for XSL' which complained
  bitterly about the verbosity and messiness of the XML-based pattern
  syntax: patterns simply occupied too much real estate to be understood;

* We will need, once we get an expression language back in, to use
  patterns in expressions.

The issue of XPOINTER convergence is also very relevant here.

This is a public process, I'm sure all suggestions for alternative
approaches to patterns which address these issues will be taken
seriously.  But please have a go at using the new language: ANY
complex syntax, whether expressed in a DTD or not, seems awkward at
first encounter.

ht
[speaking for myself, not the XSL WG]
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list