Re: XML + (XSL | CSS) ?

.Do have a look at SAXON:
>http://home.iclweb.com/icl2/mhkay/saxon.html

Thanks I will.

Incidently I just used the msxml parser to create DIV and SPAN flow objects,
and then wrote a seperate CSS style sheet by hand!!

One of the points I was trying to make is that the msxml parser came with
simple instructions for use that did not presume a familiarity with any
programming language. It took me less than 5 minutes to produce my first
output!!

By contrast I am still struggling with JADE because I can't figure out the
commands, and can't find a place where they are clearly explained. As soon
as I do figure them out i will try and write an easy guide.

Most software fails to catch on because the average user can't figure out
how to use it, not because the it is bad!!

I had been strugling with JADE on and off for about 100 hrs because I needed
a parser to teach a course (In fact in the end I had to write my own parser
which was MUCH quicker for me to do!!). How many other people are prepared
to put in this ammount time to understand a technology? Very, very, few!!
JADE presumably is easy to understand for people from a certain programming
back ground, but with my background of Assembly, C and VB I don't find it
easy.

I am at present learning JAVA so will enjoy trying to work out SAXON!!

Frank


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kay <M.H.Kay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, May 22, 1998 6:14 AM
Subject: Re: XML + (XSL | CSS) ?


>
>>I believe one of the reasons for the interest in XSL is the
>MSXSL parser. It
>>is very difficult to get interested in a hypothetical
>subject, but the
>>parser has allowed us to construct viewable pages from XML.
>I have just
>>finished using it to translate Jon Bosaks Shakespeare plays
>marked up in XML
>>to HTML.
>>
>>There are other conversion tools out there, but they come
>without clear
>>instructions and are difficult for the average intelligent
>user to use. On
>>the other hand it takes most of my students only about 5
>mins to get the
>>hang of MSXSL. (No I don't even own microsoft stock!!)
>>
>I did the same and I found it appallingly difficult, in fact
>I didn't succeed in getting a decent rendition of the
>Shakespeare except by "cheating" (generating HTML tags in
>CDATA sections, rather than generating flow objects). In the
>end I had about 250 lines of XSL; and it doesn't work
>properly for most people because of the configuration
>limitations associated with running client-side ActiveX
>objects.
>
>I've produced the identical rendition of the Shakespeare
>plays using my SAXON package, run server-side either from
>ASP pages or from Java servlets. In the first case it's 100
>lines of code and in the second 200 (the extra is just red
>tape); in my view the result is far more intuitive and
>extensible (so long as you're a programmer), and it runs
>anywhere. So my conclusion from the MSXSL prototype was to
>steer well clear of the thing until it improves! But of
>course, usability is a subjective matter.
>
>Do have a look at SAXON:
>http://home.iclweb.com/icl2/mhkay/saxon.html
>
>It includes the Shakespeare examples.
>Cheers, Mike Kay
>
>
> XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
>


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