Re: New/old pattern syntax, why can't we have both ?

Scott Lawton wrote:
> 
> >Anyways, why should we force (or "encourage") anyone into using a GUI tool
> >if they don't want to?
> 
> How about text-based tools?  Wouldn't it make sense to put the task of
> writing an extra parser (to convert the short form into XML) onto a few
> tools developers rather than to every XSL developer?

I don't see a dichotomy there. For every programming environment in
existance, we need a single implementation of an "XSL pattern parser."
This tool builds a grove from the XSL pattern and makes it available to
XML developers. Would you say that every developer who uses MPEG in his or
her program writes an MPEG decoder?
 
> This "query by example" makes easy cases easy.  Yes, complex queries are
> more complex (though no more so than the original submission) but I think
> there's incredible value in starting from a simple foundation.  And, it's
> nice to make the query syntax parallel to the generation syntax (or
> whatever the term).

#1. I'm not convinced that the current proposal makes complex things hard.
#2. If the concept of a query is going to be generalized beyond XSL (which
it inevitably will have to be) then being parallel to the generation
syntax is not a benefit.


Even if it is not generalized, being parallel could also be confusing.
Let's please remember the lesson of the overwhelming popularity of
languages in the LISP family. People don't like so much consistency.
"Consistent inconsistency" is easier to scan visually.

 Paul Prescod  - http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco

"You have the wrong number."
"Eh? Isn't that the Odeon?"
"No, this is the Great Theater of Life. Admission is free, but the 
taxation is mortal. You come when you can, and leave when you must. The 
show is continuous. Good-night." -- Robertson Davies, "The Cunning Man"


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