Re: XSL is difficult to...?

Don Park wrote:
> 
> XSL is coming along nicely and I feel that it is time to re-examine the
> learnability and readability issues, which are often overlooked when
> functionality is the main focus.

Not to rock your boat dude, but you indicate here that you are upset
with the readability issues of XML.  Down further, you start blasting
the language because someone is using >xsl:apply-templates> instead of
<xsl:apply>.  IF you look at apply-templates, although it is long, it is
definately readable.  A language which is Human Readable being one of
the prime directives of XML and XSL, I think it is fine as drafted.

 
> 1. There are just too many names to remember.

Fortunately, there are just enough to carry out all the tasks that we
need to apply to XML data. ;-)
> 
> Seemingly, there are zillions of tag names, attribute names, and endless
> supply of function names to remember.

I personally haven't done a count, but there seem to be less than html
or C, Java, Perl et al.  I also am of the impression that the XSL tags
are in very readable form.  <xsl:chose>, <xsl:for-each>, <xsl:when> are
all pretty self explanatory and human readable.  One might even argue
that they are more so than html tags like <td> <tr> <div> <a href> <img
src>.  

 
> 2. Unfamiliar use of words.
> 
> I am not used to seeing words like 'choose' and 'when' instead of 'switch'
> and 'case'.  
Although I am probably not as good a C programmer as you, I do know that
<xsl:choose> and <xsl:when> are not the same as 'switch' and 'case'.

<your_opinion>
> What I basically saying is that XSL doesn't come close to HTML when it comes
> to readability and learnability.  HTML is concise and easy to learn.  I
> would like to see XSL become more readable and easy to learn.
</your_opinion>

<my_opinion>
XSL is fine the way it is being developed.
</my_opinion>

Duane Nickull
www.cartnetwork.com


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