A weaker XSL?

[Matthew Sergeant (EML)]

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Paul Prescod [SMTP:paul at prescod.net]
> 
> "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. 
> 
	I guess what I should have said was "Why not use CSS then". If we're
talking about an XSL that doesn't do transformations then it's CSS you
should use. The perl example I guess was a bad idea, but I just meant what
we seemed to be talking about was tag matching/replacing with
programmability. CSS2 covers that.

> I'm told that these are reasons also to use Perl if you can stand it.
> 
	You missed a smiley there I assume.

	Matt.

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)