> > Sure, program XSLT in XML. I guess that makes about as much sense as XSLT
> > is ever going to. My question is, if you think programming Perl in XML is
> > such a good idea, why not do it?
"program XSLT in XML"? What does that mean? Have you used XSLT? Do you
understand what it is and what it does? It makes quite a bit of sense for
those performing regular conversions from a single data set. (No, these
questions aren't directed to Adam. :-) As Adam points out, a source filter
that takes XML and puts it through an XSL sheet to output eval-ready Perl
would be very simple.
> What's your question? XML Editors are not the limiting factor
> preventing XML-based programming languages; that argument doesn't
> stand up in the face of XSLT adoption. The dubious value of those
> beneifits (and the re-engineering cost) are the true limiting factors.
Correct. The benefit is not as obvious as some seem to think. If the goal
is format consistency, then what is gained by format consistency? It
hardly means that you could translate one language to another, or have
close interrelations between functional elements within your DTDs. If that
were the case, we wouldn't have different programming languages in the
first place.
Dan
