[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: A would-be user's first XSL experience (long)
Todd Fahrner wrote: > > I certainly agree. And I'm hearing from you that I must compile and > use a command line program to "get started" with this language > designed (among other things) to appeal to non-programmers. Is my > point so obscure? At this point in XSL's development? Yes. If you want a GUI then you may have to lag behind the latest and greatest specs. > Sure. Just be aware that for every potential user who is comfortable > with compiling and using console apps, there are easily dozens - if > not hundreds or thousands - of civilians who aren't. With XSL under > attack as difficult - by programmers no less - this appears to me to > be a major liability. I don't think that Michael Leventhal is very concerned about the *user interface* of *pre-beta* tools for an undeveloped specification. > I'm not talking about encouraging this as a production vehicle, but > as a learning tool, a free sample, a test drive. It's good marketing. > People who have a "successful" experience with the toy front end will > be motivated to dust off their programmer hats (or find a programmer) > to integrate the stuff into their production environments for real > work. I have no problem with making such a toy front end. But you are promoting it as the feature that will Save XSL. It is not. It is just a useful tool that it is nice to have available. > Would you prefer that everybody who's less comfortable than I am with > programmer's tools uses IE5 as a "reference" GUI for (MS)XSL? That's > what will happen if more zealously conformant software is not made > equally accessible. IE5 is a fine way to get the general feel for a few-months old iteration of XSL. > I'll bet that the XML.com folk could be persuaded to add such as a > complement to their simple "RUWF" toy: > http://www.xml.com/xml/pub/tools/ruwf/check.html . I suppose you > don't agree that that was worth the development effort either? I didn't say that your toy (your word) would not be worth the development effort. I even volunteered to help develop it. I claimed, rather, that it doesn't address any serious usability issue *with XSL* that will affect XSL's accessibility or popularity *once deployed*. If XSL goes to REC for six months and there are no good user interfaces for it then that would be the appropriate time to decry the terrible usability of XSL user interfaces. Anyhow, RUWF and an XSL runner are very different beasts. The latter can cause infinite loops which tend to take a long time to complete even on very fast machines. If you get a few novices using the back button and resubmitting an infinitely-looping script over and over again you can easily [expletive deleted] up a bunch of your server capacity -- even if you put limits on it. The better way to do this is with Java on the client side with a "stop" button. As I said before, if someone wants to donate the browser-portable Javascript code for talking to Java applets then I'll be glad to write the small wrapper class that turns XT into an applet. -- Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco "Silence," wrote Melville, "is the only Voice of God." The assertion, like its subject, cuts both ways, negating and affirming, implying both absence and presence, offering us a choice; it's a line that the Society of American Atheists could put on its letterhead and the Society of Friends could silently endorse while waiting to be moved by the spirit to speak. - Listening for Silence by Mark Slouka, Apr. 1999, Harper's 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
|