Re: XSLT model not "natural"? [was Re: [ANN] FreeMarke

> 
> This leads to the question of why XSLT has such a reputation. How did it 
> get such a "bum rap"? OTOH, such preconceived ideas, even obnoxious 
> stereotypes, typically have at least some basis in the truth. If XSLT 
> has a reputation for being difficult, I doubt that this is just a 
> calumny invented out of whole cloth.

Is tha the reputation it has? I thought it had a rather diferent
reputation, being easily the most successful of the W3C specified
languages post XML, and one of the more widely distributed programming
languages ever. 

> If I were in an IT department or company that hired various web page 
> design types, and we needed technology for transforming XML, I have to 
> say that I would guffaw at the idea of trying to train typical web 
> design people to use XSLT.

Odd. I find most people pick up the basic template driven style of xslt
fairly quickly, It is true that people with more programming experience
find some bits different/strange but that's because they just try to
program in fortran with xslt syntax which doesn't really work, however
people who haven't got preconceived ideas about programming normally
pick up the programming aspects of xslt naturally as well (that being
the point of the functional programming style, that it's more natural)

David
.


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