cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Don Saxton <dsax...@pacbell.net>
Subject Re: [RT] the quest for the perfect template language
Date Sat, 05 Apr 2003 17:05:57 GMT
Once we cull transform from layout (template), I can't say who likes what
language matters. Layout is a visual and aural art. They are what you see
and hear, so wysiwyg is the natural language.

I am surprised at the scarcity of wysiwyg template programs. Even
macromedia, who owns a server solution and has the most popular html editor,
seems very static aside from flash. While xsl seems hard to some of us, I
think there are some other more fundamentally hard problems to solve in
achieving wysiwyg for any language.

OpenOffice, an inherent xml editor in that its standard file formats are
xml, just released XMLFilter and a Docbook example as the means to extend
wysiwyg editting of xml.  As a bonus these are java components. It seems
like the mechanism for xsl wysiwyg is in place, but it remains to see how
much of the challenge is outside of this mechanism.

Perhaps the main question about language is which is easier to make into
wysiwyg.

Don

----- Original Message -----
From: "Geoff Howard" <cocoon@leverageweb.com>
To: <cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 7:37 AM
Subject: RE: [RT] the quest for the perfect template language


>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stefano Mazzocchi [mailto:stefano@apache.org]
> > Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 9:56 AM
> > To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [RT] the quest for the perfect template language
> >
> >
> > Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Stefano Mazzocchi wrote, On 03/04/2003 13.12:
> > >
> > >> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > >>> Apart from the fact that it lacks brackets, and thus needs an extra
> > >>> transformation, what does this give us?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> the beauty of the XSLT concepts without the mental drag of the xml
> > >> syntax.
>
> <snip/>
>
> > I really don't understand why some of you are so emotionally attached to
> > something like
> >
> >   <xsl:if test="count(blah) &gt; 3">
> >
> > but even more I'm surprised to see 'conservationism' on this list.
> >
> > Are you guys getting old or shy or what? ;-)
> >
>
> Just to explain my perspective...
>
> XSLT may not be perfect (though it certainly rocks a lot of the time) but
> it's
> got the following going for it that hasn't been focused on here:
> - Books, classes
> - Widespread adoption
>
> XML Syntax may not be perfect (for templating languages) but it's got
> the following going for it:
> - Books, classes
> - Widespread adoption
> - The attention of many corners of the IT world
> - Commodity parsers
> - Editor support
>
> If you're going to invent a competitor or an offshoot, I'm all in favor of
> it
> if it solves the problem WRT designers.
>
> But, thinking as a conservative business-minded adopter of technology, I
am
> not
> going to invest (time is money) in it until it gets a lot of the same
things
> going
> for it as above, and shows promise to get the rest.  I think there's just
as
> good
> a chance that a great (or at least workable) wysiwyg tool will come out as
> that
> another template syntax/language will come out.
>
> As an example, the "Tea" stuff may be great - it's certainly got a high
> profile
> spokesperson.  But when I went looking for a fresh solution to the
> separation of
> display and logic problem, I did not give it a second thought because
there
> was
> no sign of widespread adoption.  To this day I have no idea what tea looks
> like
> or how it works, because it doesn't matter if it's good or not.
>
> Not trying to be cynical, just pointing out that it's not just making a
good
> technology that's needed - it's making one that matters.
>
> Geoff
>


Mime
View raw message