This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
RE: The Lazy Syntax for XSLT, or TLSX
- To: xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com
- Subject: RE: The Lazy Syntax for XSLT, or TLSX
- From: sara dot mitchell at ps dot ge dot com
- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:30:28 -0500
- Reply-To: xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com
And here's a third vote, again from a technical writer. The
verboseness is part of the reason it is easy to understand
to 'nonprogrammers'.
Sara Mitchell
> "Beckers, Marc" wrote:
>
> > Unless you know no programming language to start with.
> > Speaking as a technical writer, moving from DTP to Web publishing
> > means that we must concern ourselves with stylesheet languages -
> > an additional, programming-like step in the documentation production
> > process.
> > Once you have written some XML, XSL is relatively easy to
> learn, even
> > if some consider it "verbose" (which, paradoxically, may be
> the reason
> > for it being easy to learn and read). I would hate to see
> XSL dragged
> > over-proportionately towards the "programmers' end" of the Web.
>Nicole Gustas wrote:
>
> I have to agree with Marc here. I haven't done any
> programming, and XML is
> the closest I've come so far. I've just gotten a handle on
> it, and I think
> it's because it's so verbose that I can make more sense of
> it. The idea of
> having an "XSL shorthand" that one could use after she got up
> to speed in it
> isn't a bad idea - but I think it would be a while before I
> could hack that.
>
> - Nikki
>
>
> XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
>
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list