Questioning XSL

James Robertson jamesr at
Sun May 23 05:58:14 BST 1999

At 01:37 22/05/1999 , Paul Prescod wrote:

  | I think that it is worth noting that most of the people who are in the
  | "XSL camp" are people are thoroughly familiar with scripting languages.
  | The reverse is not true. We have tried both and found the XSL way to be
  | more convenient. There is no programming language that quite captures
  | XSL's optimized mix of "polymorphic dispatch", pattern matching and
  | convenient template description.

What I'm keeping an interested eye on is the process of
"retiring" specifications.

There are so many X*L specifications, recommendations,
and notes at the moment, most must die in due course
as a part of a process of natural selection.

I think we will most likely end up with only
a handful of widely-used standards, with the
rest consigned to the annals of history.

Will XSL be one of the sucesssful standards?

I don't know.

What I can say is that personally I use Omnimark
(which is now free for all) for this sort of
work, and I'm very happy with it. Looking at the
expressiveness of XSL, I have doubts.

But I don't claim to be representative of
any cross-section of the XML community.

Just an interested observer, and a practical



James Robertson
Step Two Designs Pty Ltd
SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy
jamesr at

"Beyond the Idea"
 ACN 081 019 623

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

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list