W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 1999

RE: xml.com

From: Barry van Oven <bvoven@baan.nl>
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 09:34:54 +0200
Message-ID: <ECC8D8536DF7D211AB8400805F191C1D0E103F@ex-nld-u1.baan.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
XSL messy? Like learning three languages isn't messy. At least XML + XSL
adheres to one set of syntax instructions.

XML + DOM + CSS forces you to learn three languages instead of one and a
half...

Barry



-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Glazman [mailto:Daniel.Glazman@der.edf.fr]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 9:08 AM
To: Håkon Wium Lie
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Subject: Re: xml.com


Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
> 
> xml.com has published a set of articles [1] by Michael Leventhal that
> compares DOM+CSS to XSL:
> 
>   When compared to the DOM+CSS, XSL does not solve any Web-related
>   problems that the current W3C Recommendations do not adequately
>   handle. What is the Big Deal indeed?
> 
> The technical debates on xml.com should be of interest to readers of
> this list.
> 
> [1] http://www.xml.com/xml/pub/1999/05/xsl/xslconsidered_1.html


The big deal is the word "adequately" (no humour in this comment).

CSS is ugly because it is not XMLized, DOM is not declarative.

On the other hand, XSL is declarative, powerful, XMLishized,
completely messy (XSL, XQL, XSLT, XTL, numerous drafts) and
especially complex and hard to read/understand. To summarize,
and in my humble opinion only, something totally *not* adequate ;-)

</Daniel>
Received on Wednesday, 26 May 1999 03:35:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:59 GMT