cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsber...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: xml languages
Date Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:43:10 GMT
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:07:25 +0100, BURGHARD Éric
<eric.burghard@systheo.com> wrote:
> hi everybody,
> 
> I'm a little disapointed by all theses xml languages we can found around
> which nearly all do the same things.
> 
> 1) Last time i wanted to construct a project with maven and i found jelly.
> it had a rich tag library, handle jexl expressions, and can handle xpath
> through tag's libraries. But, as maven users, you all know that.
> 
> So my question (naïve), is why not using jelly (jelly generator) instead of
> redo the work with jxtemplate. I wonder why using ant mutant anteater too,
> because IMHO testing with ant+jelly+junit+http(client) is much more
> powerfull (multipart post, upload file, ...). And we could certainly define
> a new tag library (macros) and run the anteater scripts "as is" with jelly.
> 
> 2) I play last time with saxon8 and xpath/xslt2.0. I found that it looks
> much more like a programming language than ever (well it's still xml). I
> like the simplified stylesheet syntax, which allow you to mix the document
> and the stylesheet into one document (like jx).
> 
> So is there any plan to add an xslt2.0 generator. Think about a generator
> which add some context variables (like $cocoon), or give access to
> protocols (like cocoon:/) inside in your template.

You can already do more-or-less exactly that: just aggregate some
generators (like the request generator) and feed them to Saxon 8
(though we use Saxon 7) as a transformer step to apply whatever
transforms you want.   If you want to use XSLT 2 then use it.

What many people seem to want is a template language other than XSLT. 
Personally, I agree that that seems to be re-inventing the wheel, but
open source communities seem to like constant mutant evolution...

-- 
Peter Hunsberger

Mime
View raw message