Re: 2.6 patterns: let's try variations on the XML syntax

At 01:16 AM 8/25/98 -0400, Liam Quin wrote:

>Make a style language, a link language, a locator language,
>a transformation language and a resource description language [2]
>that all feel as if they belong together, that are simple enough that
>they can be used by relatively non-technical people in an afternoon,
>and yet that are powerful enough to meet very advanced needs.
>
>It may be that XSL is there, but I don't think so.  It's a draft,
>and I think the wind blowing back is saying, make it simpler.  Make

>it the same as other parts of XML.  Make it more accessible.
>
>The XSL query syntax needs to be integrated with XPointer and XLink,
>or maybe a revised form of these, and XSchema, RDF and namespaces should
>be built on that infrastructure.
>

If I read this correctly, the implicit assumption is that all of these
languages need to be capable of being hand-coded by relative newbies...
I've seen other comments in this list say that this is in fact a goal of
XML and XSL, but I tend to disagree that we should make that a *primary*
goal.  I believe that we should not subjugate developing powerful tools to
developing a syntax that "feels as if it belongs together".  Even if the
syntax *is* easy, people will still gravitate toward tools that can
generate the code for them, so I think we should focus on ensuring that
these standards can express what we see as the future of hypermedia.  If
the syntax is difficult to hand-code, then so be it - and besides, having a
difficult syntax helps keep independent software vendors in business ;-)

Chris
True ease in writing comes from art, not chance,
As those move easiest who have learn'd to dance.

-- Pope, "Essay on Criticism, II"


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