[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: 2.6 patterns: let's try variations on the XML syntax
Scott Lawton wrote: > > >Should we abandon Java and other programming languages > >that do not use XML syntax? > > Well, XSL did express programming constructs in XML; something that (to me) > is much more awkward than expressing a template match in XML. I don't find > it all that readable (compared to traditional syntax) -- but I shrugged off > the extra effort since I agree with the goal of expressing in XML. I haven't looked closely, but at this point, XSL seems to be most certainly NOT a programming language. It may in the future be extensible WITH a programming language (as DSSSL is) and at that point it would be nice to have a clear, visual separation between the programming language parts and the declarative parts. So maybe the verbosity buys us more there than moral purity. (which may or may not be the case with element-syntax patterns) > But, what's the goal? To pick the best syntax for macros, programming > constructs and template match, or to express as much of XSL in XML as is > reasonable? The latter. Your definition of reasonable may differ from mine, however. I don't expect to type addresses between documents in terms of <HTTP DOMAIN="www.w3.org" PATH="..."> <FRAGMENT> <XPOINTER>...</XPOINTER></FRAGMENT></HTTP> Since the problem is essentially the same as the one XSL is addressing, the two solutions should be compatible, which means attribute-based syntax is likely to win out (XPointer's attribute-based syntax was uncontraversial, AFAIK). > Quick reaction: if a separate working group is formed to create a query > language, it should define a set of requirements, outline its scope, and > tackle the problem. Maybe that's a good idea; I don't know enough about > the big picture to comment. But in the absence of that, I think it's best > to apply the considerable expertise of the working group (and others) to > come up a good XML syntax. I'm never against other people expending their own energy. :) I would like to believe that the W3C will get this right. Enough people have recently voiced the idea tha these things should be harmonized that I expect it to happen sooner or later. So I personally will not spend energy on an element-syntax for pointers, because I believe that proposal to be doomed and I believe the alternative to be better anyhow. Paul Prescod - http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco "You have the wrong number." "Eh? Isn't that the Odeon?" "No, this is the Great Theater of Life. Admission is free, but the taxation is mortal. You come when you can, and leave when you must. The show is continuous. Good-night." -- Robertson Davies, "The Cunning Man" XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|