Re: First experiences with XSL

len bullard (cbullard@hiwaay.net)
Sat, 31 Jan 1998 18:56:00 -0600

Sharon Adler wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
> As I write this, the XSL WG is 2/3 through its first official meeting. The
> Microsoft code does not represent the "Final" XSL but the srawman of some of
> the facilities of XSL. The lack of diagnostics/limited functionality of a
> partial prototype implementation is not any indication of the functionality
> or capability of a style language, nor any final implementation. Of course
> you can accomplish what you wanted in Java. Any hacker can do anything they
> want in code, but what about the rest of the world's humans.

Can anyone show that XSL (if indeed, a Turing complete language) is any
easier
than Java? XSL is a programmig language and there are far more mortals
(programmers in some cases) who understand and can easily use Java than
XSL/DSSSL. Why? Object-oriented programming is the rule
not the exception in programming communities. JavaScript has a
tremendous
advantage in that stepping up to Java from JavaScript incurs no
shocks of syntax. It is an easy transition.

Since at least C forward, it has been the support libraries
that made the difference in ease or utility because syntax aside,
and side effect issues, the same features are found in most programming
languages. So, one might retreat to the defense of "But it is a
standard"
and there one would have a point. Unless and until Sun releases Java
as a true standard (a PAS won't cut it), implementors of systems
based on it create systems based on proprietary technology.

> Please don't use the XSL prototype if it is not suitable for you to play
> around with, but give us a chance to create a workable standard.

But of course.

len bullard