cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bertrand Delacretaz <>
Subject Re: [Design] JXTG 2.0 (Just my opinion)
Date Mon, 06 Dec 2004 06:27:03 GMT

Le 5 déc. 04, à 06:14, Stefano Mazzocchi a écrit :

> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>> Le 4 déc. 04, à 21:03, Glen Ezkovich a écrit :
>>> On Dec 4, 2004, at 3:37 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>>> ...Currently we have JXTG for the first step, and mostly XSLT for 
>>>> the second. Having something that could cover both steps and be 
>>>> usable by either programmers working on the first step or designers 
>>>> working on the second would be a Really Good Thing.
>>> I'm not really sure what you mean by having something that could 
>>> cover both steps. JXTG covers both steps in the sense that many 
>>> people are using it to inject their data into their html.  Now, to 
>>> have a template transformer, that is something with which I would 
>>> really like to play. I'm not very found of XSL. A simpler 
>>> alternative could be a Really, Really Good Thing.
>> That's what I mean - having a transformer that can use the same 
>> template syntax as used in the generator, so that the template 
>> language can be used for both the generation and transformation 
>> steps.
> My FS detector is out of scale!!
> This is *exactly* what the XSLT WG did and failed miserably. XSLT can 
> be used for both generation and tranformation. But it looks right for 
> one (besides the stupid XML-ish syntax) and totally ackward for the 
> other. XQuery is the same thing, only reversed: it can be used as a 
> template language, and as a transformation language. If feels better 
> for the first one (only ackward because, as usual, the XSLT WG starts 
> with one name and ends up defining something else) and totally wrong 
> for the second.
> Look at my eyes and repeat with me: I DO NOT WANT TO REPEAT THE 
> Generation and transformation are two different things, done often by 
> different people and for different goals and with different 
> constaints.
> Having one language for both will do only harm, because it will make 
> it harder for people to decide when to use generation and when to use 
> transformation.
> -- 
> Stefano.
   Bertrand Delacretaz
   independent consultant, Lausanne, Switzerland

View raw message