James Clark wrote,
> I can't see anything in there that is beyond the 
> skills of somebody who can write XML+CSS.

I you meant XML+CSS+DOM, then I agree. XML+CSS need
be nothing like so problematic for non-programmers
because usable tools ought to be quite feasible.

> I don't claim to be an expert on what's easy for non-
> programmers, but I don't think that the major 
> companies that are supporting the development of XSLT, 
> like Microsoft, Oracle, Lotus and IBM (see Appendix D 
> of the XSLT WD for a complete list) would be bothering 
> with it if it was completely unuseable by non-
> programmers.

So where are the studies then? Or are you just taking 
it on faith? Let's face it all of those companies, and 
many others besides, have for years been merrily 
producing software that's profoundly unintuitive for 
non-programmers. Why do you suppose XSLT is any 
different?

In the kinds of areas that XSL covers the software that 
non-programmers *can* get on reasonably well with are 
word-processors, DTP and drawing applications which 
allow them to apply attributes in a very CSS-like way.

Cheers,


Miles

-- 
Miles Sabin                          Cromwell Media
Internet Systems Architect           5/6 Glenthorne Mews
+44 (0)181 410 2230                  London, W6 0LJ
msabin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx           England


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