[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: why split? [was RE: XSL intent survey]
Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >... So we'd have transformative declarative syntax, with optional flow objects, >and optional scripting. To my mind (and I realise >everybody has their own biased interests) this would be an appropriate >order for prioritising consideration. This is fine, except it places the transformation issues "before" the formatting. This whole thing started when it was pointed out that the transformation issues were secondary - if you go by the original intent. You get a different language if you want a "transformation language with optional formatting" or a "formatting language with some transformations". This isn't just playing with words - each part requires a lot of effort to do well, and there's only so much to go around. There are also downright conflicts - with regard to the language complexity and intended audience, for example. Have fun, Oren Ben-Kiki 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
|