Tyler Baker wrote:
> Well there is speculation and there is fact.  The current XSL draft is working
> quite well (at least for HTML output) for the needs of a highly-dynamic website I
  Do you call "quite well" the current solution ? This is a post processor solution !
How can I generate HTML4 strict or HTML4 transitional with this solution ? Should
we add a namespace for all HTML DTD ?

> am indirectly involved with.  I don't think XSL is supposed to be the end-all
> solution for everything, but something simple enough that you don't need a
> complicated programming background just to create a highly-dynamic website.
>
> XSL as not a programming language.  It is not a scripting language either.  I feel
> XSL's power will be in its simplicity and its ability to change the entire look and
> feel of a website without changing the content or rewriting about 1000 lines of
> JavaScript each time.  Writing code to present content is just not a very efficient
> way of delivering dynamic content from a cost perspective.  No company in there
> right mind wants to hire 10 JavaScript experts just to get a website going.
> 
> XSL I believe will succeed because it will eliminate the need for a lot of the
> scripting solutions as well as the really high-end web-site server products people
> use today to get the job done.  In the end, this saves businesses money and that is
> why it will succeed.
  I understand your opinion and have no answer for you. But you can't do
a lot of thing with XSL ...
 For example, if I want to have two result tree from one XML document, I can't. I must
write a program to do this for the moment. You reject the scripting solution because
you don't need a powerful tool. What users, like me, can do with this poor
language ? Should we definitively forget XSL and write programs without specification
or guideline ?

Philippe.


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list