A weaker XSL?

[Paul Prescod]

"Matthew Sergeant (EML)" wrote:
> 
>         I might have misunderstood, but what's the point of XSL in that case
> then? Why not just use perl to do s/<(\/?)catalog>/<$1table>/ ?
> 
>         (obviously you can be more complete than this, I just wanted a
> simple example).

That's an odd question. I don't see that there are some problems that are
"too simple" for XSL. The simpler the problem, the more sense it makes to
use XSL. 

We use XSL because it is:

 * standardized
 * declarative
 * optimizable
 * can be implemented in the heart of a repository
 * has many competing implementations

We use Python because it is:

 * flexible
 * highly extensible
 * has a powerful standard library

I'm told that these are reasons also to use Perl if you can stand it.

 Paul Prescod  - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself
 http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco

"Remember, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did,
but she did it backwards and in high heels."
                                               --Faith Whittlesey

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)