RE: The Lazy Syntax for XSLT, or TLSX

And here's a third vote, again from a technical writer. The
verboseness is part of the reason it is easy to understand
to 'nonprogrammers'.

Sara Mitchell

> "Beckers, Marc" wrote:
> 
> > Unless you know no programming language to start with.
> > Speaking as a technical writer, moving from DTP to Web publishing
> > means that we must concern ourselves with stylesheet languages -
> > an additional, programming-like step in the documentation production
> > process.
> > Once you have written some XML, XSL is relatively easy to 
> learn, even
> > if some consider it "verbose" (which, paradoxically, may be 
> the reason
> > for it being easy to learn and read). I would hate to see 
> XSL dragged
> > over-proportionately towards the "programmers' end" of the Web.

>Nicole Gustas wrote:
> 
> I have to agree with Marc here.  I haven't done any 
> programming, and XML is
> the closest I've come so far.  I've just gotten a handle on 
> it, and I think
> it's because it's so verbose that I can make more sense of 
> it.  The idea of
> having an "XSL shorthand" that one could use after she got up 
> to speed in it
> isn't a bad idea - but I think it would be a while before I 
> could hack that.
> 
> - Nikki
> 
> 
>  XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
> 


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