From: Luke Graham <spoooq@...>
Date: 2005-06-24T11:32:32+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby/REXML vs XSLT

I have tried the same problem in both, actually.

XSLT is a conceptually better way of looking at the problem, but Ruby
is of course a far superior language. My conclusion - either way is
going to be hard to grok for any problem with significant depth.

XPath is the real workhorse of XSLT... keeping it and throwing the
rest away would be a good start. I havent looked at XQuery in any
depth.


On 6/22/05, R. Mark Volkmann <mark@ociweb.com> wrote:
> Quoting Pit Capitain <pit@capitain.de>:
> 
> > John Carter schrieb:
> > > Anyone ever tried to do something in both Ruby REXML and the samething
> > > in XSLT?
> >
> > Look at http://www.martinfowler.com/bliki/MovingAwayFromXslt.html
> 
> In my opinion, the best thing about XSLT is XPath.  XQuery also supports the use
> of XPath, but doesn't use XML syntax.  This makes it much more compact than
> XSLT.  I think XQuery solves the issues raised in Martin Fowler's article.
> 
> A good XQuery implementation is Saxon.  This also supports XSLT.
> 
> --
> R. Mark Volkmann
> Partner, Object Computing, Inc.
> 
> 


-- 
spooq