Re: XSLT and XML in the same document

Andrew Welch wrote:
> ...
> I guess its good that people persist with client side XSLT (as one day
> it might be worthwhile), but I reckon its just a hangover from the
> original intentions of XML.

I happen to like the original intentions of XML :-)

So do I but things change - look at the node set example, it was
apparently a last-minute decision that was reversed at the earliest
opportunity.  The "produce-output-at-all-costs" design goal of XSLT
1.0 was replaced with "fail-early" principle in 2.0 - the complete
opposite.

Namespaces came along after XML and had to be bolted on.  The original
concept of "XSL" was split into XSLT and XSLFO.  XLink and XPointer
were thought to be needed but it became apparent that you could model
your own links in XML.  The <?xml-stylesheet ?> processing instruction
was thought to be a good idea, but as soon as you needed to pass in a
parameter you were a bit stuck.  Tightly coupling your styling to your
XML was considered ok then, but I think most people agree now that its
A Bad Idea.

Originally XML was expected just to be "SGML for the web" but now its
used everywhere, although ironically not that much in place of HTML.
Things change.  It's fair to say client side transforms have been a
failure when compared to the original intentions.