Re: Language is not markup and markup is not language.

Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> While I think it a *very* worthwhile and useful effort, I don't see it as
> competing necessarily with XSL as the advantage of XSL over a scripted
> implimnetation is that the very fact that XSL is XML means that it can be
> treated as data, transformed, pointed into, queried, split into sub-trees
> etc etc. It's for these reasons that XSL is in the form of XML, and that
> the general drive is toward all XML related technologies being described in
> XML.

It's a little late now as far as XSL is concerned, but I sometimes wonder if it
would have been possible to simply take an existing language and massage it
into XML syntax. This could have accomplished the ease of processing goals you
mentioned above, allowed for greater flexibility, and helped speed adoption.

Just a thought. Is there still room in that bunker?

Rick Geimer
National Semiconductor
rick.geimer@xxxxxxx


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