Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Michael Dykman wrote:
Abel: would you mind if I borrowed some of your verbiage for that documentation? No, not at all, I'd be honored! ;) Another note, but now about the design of your product. Though it looks More than welcome, even (and I sure hope you meant version 0.2, because 2.0 seems to be a bit too far off ;) One other thought: you mention SVG as an example on your website, but both SVG and XSL-FO, which are superb candidates for use-cases of your tool, cannot be tested anymore once you start creating a design document: an invalid SVG or XSL-FO document (and it is invalid once your attributes are used) will not render. This is different from the XHTML examples, which will still render. Not using a namespace unfortunately renders your tool useless for all but the most trivial examples.... (meaning: your tool will still work, but the strength of it, as you state on your homepage, that you can *design* a document without it being tampered by your extensions, does not hold any longer). <alessandro.bologna@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Opinions vary. But yes, sometimes business logic is better written in a GP language. But there's another benefit when doing this solely in XSLT: people do not have to invest in your tools, they can just embed the XSLT in their current systems without much changes to their architecture. And possibly/hopefully, your settings file, which is now embedded in the JAR and is a java .properties file, will then become an XML settings file.
|
