cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <>
Subject Re: [RT] the quest for the perfect template language
Date Fri, 04 Apr 2003 14:56:22 GMT
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.
> So it's just style, right?

style, mindset, syntax sugar, call it as you like. but a perfetly good 
concept (RDF, for example) can be ruined by lack of style (its xml 
syntax), just like a nice engine can be totally hidden inside an 
ugly-looking car.

gosh, you are the first italian I ever heard that doesn't care about 
style :-)

Guess why i bought a mac :-)

>> [note, since stylesheet are compiled in memory anyway, the extra 
>> transformation doens't add any performance problems at runtime]
> I'd like to see that before believing. XSPs were compiled, hence the 
> fastest... but oddly enough the interpreted sitemap is faster still.

There is nobody who is more blind that somebody who doesn't want to see.

Saint Thomas, look: if the syntax adaptation stage is done *before* the 
execution, what difference can it possibly make at runtime?

>>> XSLT? I like it. For simple transformations IMHO it really rocks. 
>>> With a relative small number of tags and some xpath it does almost 
>>> all that is needed.
>> The cost of writing a stylesheet is exponential with time and with 
>> people involved. I want to solve this.
> And that's because of pointy brackets? The same holds true for Java or 
> any language.
> XML has to be valid, and I like to be able to validate my XSLT 
> stylesheet. 

The parser that is responsible for transforming the non-xml syntax to 
the xml one can be *MUCH* more validating than any xml schema language 
and, for sure, much more precise in giving you error messages.

>I tried Velocity, but I kept outputting erroneously 
> non-wellformed XML, and after a while I got fed up with it totally.

Velocity is text-based, my approach is sax based. Huge difference.

velocity has a nice syntax, but it's text-baseness is dead poor in a 
sax-intensive environment like ours. besides the requirement of an extra 
processing stage which blows the performance.

the idea to use a non-xml syntax for XSLT would allow the best of both 

   - friendly syntax
   - structured results

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? ;-)


View raw message