Stefano Mazzocchi wrote, On 03/04/2003 13.12:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:...
Apart from the fact that it lacks brackets, and thus needs an extra transformation, what does this give us?
the beauty of the XSLT concepts without the mental drag of the xml syntax.
So it's just style, right?
Once for all: managers would stop thinking that since it's markup, their html kiddies should be able to play with it.
XSLT is a full-blown programming language. Let's give it a real-man syntax.
Ahh, the "real programmer" (TM)... wasn't that the one coding like: 100100011101001...? ;-P
[note, since stylesheet are compiled in memory anyway, the extra transformation doens't add any performance problems at runtime]
I'd like to see that before believing. XSPs were compiled, hence the fastest... but oddly enough the interpreted sitemap is faster still.
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.
The cost of writing a stylesheet is exponential with time and with people involved. I want to solve this.
And that's because of pointy brackets? The same holds true for Java or any language.
XML has to be valid, and I like to be able to validate my XSLT stylesheet. I tried Velocity, but I kept outputting erroneously non-wellformed XML, and after a while I got fed up with it totally.
Do you remember at ApacheCon Europe, when the Xalan developers kept saying that XSPs were irrelevant because XSLT could do all? *chuckle*
Yes, and they have always been right and I've always known that.
Still, while XSP wasn't a perfect solution, even XSLT isn't perfect.
We should clear the whiteboard and converge the two worlds into one, taking the good part of both.
This sounds good +1
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------