From: Nicholas Van Weerdenburg Date: 2005-01-07T02:02:44+09:00 Subject: Re: Ruby Data Structure Query Abstractions/Patterns On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 00:46:35 +0900, itsme213 wrote: > > "Sam Roberts" wrote in message > news:20050106145338.GA2998@ensemble.local... > > > (1) Having a uniform and extensible concrete syntax for tree structures > is > > > great > > > (2) Having a whole set of uniform manipulations on (1) is great > > > (3) Insisting on applying (1) to the concrete syntax of (2) is absurd > and > > > the result, ugly > > > > I don't know what (3) is talking about. The syntax of XPath isn't XML. > > It's a domain-specific language inside XML, much as regexs are a > > domain-specific language inside ruby. > > Well, my analogy to writing Ruby was off the mark, but I suppose I was doing > my rant to your "what's not to like about XML" rant. Because (3) is > definitely something I dislike about the XML (and it sounds like you would > agree too). > > I had trouble understanding point 3, but I'm guessing your point was that XSLT shouldn't be an XML dialect, but rather a proper language? Similar to: http://www.martinfowler.com/bliki/MovingAwayFromXslt.html Nick -- Nicholas Van Weerdenburg