Stefano Mazzocchi wrote, On 02/04/2003 20.25: ...
IMHO, the template language which is closer to the optimum is XSLT but only with one change:
FORGET THE XML SYNTAX!
*chuckle* I see that your basicness is biting still ;-))
I'm entering wild mode now, so bear with me. Suppose you had:...
1) a syntax that is simple and efficient to describe a stylesheet 2) a defined object model accessible thru regular xpath queries 3) no ability to call extensions
Let me give you an example of what I mean. First of all, let us assume that the template engine assumes an xml-izable representation of all the data it has access to.
the above should be parsed, transformed into a regular xslt stylesheet and fed into a normal XSLT processor with extensions.
Apart from the fact that it lacks brackets, and thus needs an extra transformation, what does this give us?
The above will then be:
1) useful for both generation and transformation (the input object will be empty and the / template would be called)
2) compilable
3) stream based
What does this give us practically?
4) reduced verbosity yet terse 5) access to all cocoon object model and extensible 6) namespace-capable 7) declarative
What do you think?
XSLT? I like it. For simple transformations IMHO it really rocks. With a relative small number of tags and some xpath it does almost all that is needed.
Do you remember at ApacheCon Europe, when the Xalan developers kept saying that XSPs were irrelevant because XSLT could do all? *chuckle*
P.S. the above syntax is rough and I think it's not that perfect, but a terse yet powerful syntax is achievable.
I still don't honestly see th ebig difference between that and XSLT.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------