-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 10 June 2002 11:23 pm, Vuillemot, Ward W wrote: > : Really interesting, xml > : appears to be > : the final destination for most of us, even if now i > : prefer objects. > : > : Ciao, Valerio > > That is my big question. Is XML/XSLT really the right solution? Using SAX > along with having tags call handlers seems like a pretty powerful way to > get a very cool tool to build powerful templating services. I haven't > decided if XSLT really is worth the effort as it just seems like a > glorified XML (yes; it is indeed) -- what I mean to say, does XSLT really > have any real value since everything it does can be done in Perl. If I got > make handlers for XSLT, too -- then why even use XSLT? Just go back to > plain XML and do it all on my own, no?
There's quite a few things that are a lot harder to do with XML in plain perl (especially in SAX) than they are in XSLT. It's really hard to explain this to anyone who hasn't yet learned XSLT's template model, but the simplest thing to describe is that looping back to previous tags is really hard with SAX (you have to use some sort of node caching technique). One thing a lot of people will argue is that XSLT is verbose and ugly. And I totally agree. But get over it. Perl is ugly too. But once you start using XSLT for any length of time you start to realise just why it is designed like it is, and you start to appreciate that design (and this is from someone who has so far designed *two* alternatives to XSLT!). - -- <:->get a SMart net</:-> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9BZcbVBc71ct6OywRAv81AKDMDkWvAOhwY3A0vDlxxHSK7Y6qOACgm3ni VRLe9kmR9i3tDcMJAKr8d7s= =2Xpn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
