RE: XSL controversy

> - XSLT is better at down translations that up translations; if your
> transformation is going from a less-structured form to a more-structured
> form, XSLT may not be a good choice

Hi everyone,
 I'm using XSLT for importing data from (very unstructred) HTML pages into
(well structured) XML. Although I agree that XSLT is better going the other
direction, I've found that XSLT is excellent for my application. The XSLT
code simpler and easier to understand than it would be in a procedural
language.

Up translations are hard, potentially very hard.
All depending on how unstructured the source
material is.

I use Omnimark for this sort of work, and it has
a lot of nice features for this. Like regular
expression parsing intertwined with SGML element
handling.

And I generally use _all_ of Omnimark's nifty
features in an up translate.

But, actually, this really isn't a big criticism
of something like XSLT. There are already quite a
few SGML "conversion" or "publishing" tools that are
good for down translates but not up translates.

You need a complex, powerful language to handle
up translates. XSLT's advantage is its relative
simplicity (at least for simple tasks).

-------------------------
James Robertson
Step Two Designs Pty Ltd
SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy
http://www.steptwo.com.au/
jamesr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Beyond the Idea"
 ACN 081 019 623