From: Alexander Schofield <pcs3@...>
Date: 2002-01-25T06:55:27+09:00
Subject: Re: OT:  XML  (was: RANT: Ruby GUI API)

No arguments there.  For the vast majority of cases, XSLT would be
better off as better-looking non-XML source.  My only guess as to why
they wrote XSLT with XML syntax is because maybe they foresaw massive
automated document templating systems?  Where the XSLT itself was
generated on-the-fly from fragments based on some conditions.  In that
case its syntax would definately help, but for the vast majority of
situations, it's just a pain.

Dave Thomas wrote:
> Well, I've written some XSLT (a quick find|wc shows 5452 lines of it in
> my currently checked-out source tree). It is high level. But it
> communicates badly. That's why I said "the theory goes". Communication
> is important. The decision to base XSLT on XML is (in my opinion)
> flawed, as it places convenience for the implementors over usability
> for the users.
> 
> However, I suspect we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Dave

-- 
Alexander Schofield
email: theschof@cs.com