Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
So, according to the previous posts, there are valid reasons for having XML-based XSLT syntax, and for having a more humane variant. Question: why can't this be the case, so that we enjoy the benefits of both? I.e. why can't we have two isomorphic syntaxes for XSLT, both blessed by a standards body --- similar to the two syntaxes for RelaxNG. (The blessing is important -- I've heard about enthusiasts attempting this, but what are their chances of reaching wide adoption?) Here are a few guesses why: (1) There are known strong technical reasons such a human-readable syntax is problematic. (E.g. we cannot guarantee having non-lossy translations back and forth, even for "a majority" of stylesheets.) (2) Defining a human-readable syntax is too much work (even if starting from a contributed draft proposal), and W3C didn't feel enough pressure to charter a WG for this. (3) The pressure on W3C is nowhere to come from: the overwhelming majority of XML programmers couldn't care less. Is any of the guesses valid? Do I miss another possible explanation? (I personally hope (2) is the strongest reason...) Vladimir
|
