Subject: Re: AW: AW: AW: [xsl] commenting and documenting XSLT (small survey) From: xptm@xxxxxxx Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 21:19:38 +0100 |
I'll vote for this one :) Citando Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > Chris, > > At 08:01 AM 7/8/2004, you wrote: > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >a list > >====== > >* item 1 > >* item 2 > > > >with some *emphasized* or ``tt`` text > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > >is very readable and quite "writable" as well. it is just a nice way to > >write comments and it quite easy to process into XHTML afterwards. > > It is readable, and writable, but: > > Is it learnable? (how do I know that * delimits emphasis, except when it > doesn't? what if I want bold not italics? what if I do ~this~, what comes > out?) > > What happens when it contains glitches? > > How does an author know whether it is properly formed, without concepts > analogous to XML "well-formedness" and "valid", and tools to implement > their specifications? Is there any way to know the correctness of the input > besides running the process and inspecting the output? If so, what is it > and how is it specified? If not, who owns, controls, and maintains the > ur-process that controls everything? > > Also, I question how easy it is to process into XHTML afterwards. It may be > easy to do the first 80% but I submit that the last 20% -- and all the > subsequent desiderata like "how do I make a list item with more than one > line in it?" -- will probably drive you crazy. > > Part of what makes XML so powerful -- for those that have eyes to see -- is > that it handles these questions in such a robust way. No, XML syntax is not > perfect. But the syntax is just the beginning of a markup application, not > the end. XML has not only got a syntax, it has a very sophisticated > processing model as well, which can be used to address questions such as > those I've asked above. Part of XML's sophistication is evident in how > simple it appears to be, and basically is, while it can likewise scale in > complexity to address very difficult, and various, problems. > > But that simplicity took years -- decades -- of experimenting with markup > languages before anything solidified (it happened to be SGML) to the point > that it could be reinvented as "XML". > > I like WikiML and the whole notion of reduced, learnable, plain-text markup > conventions, and I'll take it as a sign of real progress when one emerges > with a design compelling enough, and a processing model robust enough > (it'll have to go beyond "check correctness by eyeballing output"), to > unseat the currently-dominant paradigm. Anything not as dead-simple as > <tag>this</tag> is going to be a pain to learn, teach, maintain. > > And it would be ironic if a utility you developed to help you maintain > stylesheets became a maintenance headache of its own. > > You asked for opinions ... I agree with David and DaveP on this one. > > Cheers, > Wendell > > > > ====================================================================== > Wendell Piez mailto:wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Mulberry Technologies, Inc. http://www.mulberrytech.com > 17 West Jefferson Street Direct Phone: 301/315-9635 > Suite 207 Phone: 301/315-9631 > Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 301/315-8285 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in SGML and XML > ====================================================================== > >
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: AW: AW: AW: [xsl] commenting an, Wendell Piez | Thread | [xsl] Generate N elements, Kenny Bogoe (BogoeMD |
Re: AW: AW: AW: [xsl] commenting an, Wendell Piez | Date | [xsl] Figuring out for-group-by, Barry Lay |
Month |