RE: Language choice (was: Re: Interactive XML)

	>And that is an even sadder joke. XML was designed for
	>marking-up documents, not for defining the syntax of
	>programming languages (even declarative ones).
	>
	>Give me F(X) rather than
	><FUNCTION><NAME>F</NAME><ARGUMENT>X</ARGUMENT></FUNCTION>
	>any day of the week.

	XSL syntax is based on the XML markup syntax. This does not mean
that you should have to make your functions as you state above. The true
power of the current XSL syntax is that it provides everyone a clear way
of seeing the flow objects.

	I've learned both XSL and DSSSL and found XSL to be a more
natural way of marking up a document. While DSSSL will allow you to more
complex decision making within the syntax with it's core expression
language, XSL is much eaiser for making formatting.

	If you do need to call a function in a XSL block, you can use
the following syntax:
				<eval> f(x) </eval>

	As long as f() is defined in the script section, the XSL
processor will then look to the script to evaluate f(x) without any new
syntax.

	Maybe I'm just on crack but this seems like a natural extension.

	~~ Dan ~~


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