W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2012

Re: Precision and error handling (was URL work in HTML 5)

From: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 15:27:04 -0400
Message-Id: <363A9D3F-4980-4BB6-8CAD-59BAD48F3447@opera.com>
Cc: W3C TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
To: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>
-www-tag
+www-archive

Your mail at 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Oct/0063
is not acceptable.


Le 9 oct. 2012 à 15:06, Eric J. Bowman a écrit :
> Says who?

me.

>  I've been using XSLT to process XHTML for 12 years now.  If
> it were the wrong tool as you claim, that would make me a masochist, when the truth is I'm so lazy I just use the simplest thing that makes sense and *works*, all "you're doing it wrong" trolling aside.

And you are misguided in your comments. Could you come back to something not personal. I am, myself, a user of XSLT and XML toolchain on XHTML. 

> Have you ever even *used* XSLT to process XHTML?  Because I'm having a difficult time believing that statement came from an expert.

Read above. Ask around, for example in the W3C Team, about my attachment to XML if you need proof. Please could you come back to something technical only.


>  I've certainly found it works better to use a tool that groks elements/attributes, over having to code spaghetti regex to determine same before processing.

XSLT works very well on a well-formed HTML serialized as XML, aka XHTML. Nobody said XSLT was not a good tool for *XML* documents. Read again my mail and the thread.


> To say otherwise is to propagate FUD, IMO, but it's what I've come to expect from WHATWG folks.

oh the irony. And you infer this from?


-- 
Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/
Developer Relations, Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2012 19:27:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 9 October 2012 19:27:34 GMT