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?
style, mindset, syntax sugar, call it as you like. but a perfetly good concept (RDF, for example) can be ruined by lack of style (its xml syntax), just like a nice engine can be totally hidden inside an ugly-looking car.
gosh, you are the first italian I ever heard that doesn't care about style :-)
Guess why i bought a mac :-)
[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.
There is nobody who is more blind that somebody who doesn't want to see.
Saint Thomas, look: if the syntax adaptation stage is done *before* the execution, what difference can it possibly make at runtime?
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.
The parser that is responsible for transforming the non-xml syntax to the xml one can be *MUCH* more validating than any xml schema language and, for sure, much more precise in giving you error messages.
I tried Velocity, but I kept outputting erroneously non-wellformed XML, and after a while I got fed up with it totally.
Velocity is text-based, my approach is sax based. Huge difference.
velocity has a nice syntax, but it's text-baseness is dead poor in a sax-intensive environment like ours. besides the requirement of an extra processing stage which blows the performance.
the idea to use a non-xml syntax for XSLT would allow the best of both worlds:
- friendly syntax - structured results
I really don't understand why some of you are so emotionally attached to something like
<xsl:if test="count(blah) > 3">
but even more I'm surprised to see 'conservationism' on this list.
Are you guys getting old or shy or what? ;-)
-- Stefano.
