24 ms·
SOAP, RDF and the semantic web clique, and other monstruosities of the 2000s gave XML a bad name but XSLT is nice. Indeed it would have been a nicer solution th
by tangue 9y ago
SOAP, RDF and the semantic web clique, and other monstruosities of the 2000s gave XML a bad name but XSLT is nice. Indeed it would have been a nicer solution than responsive css to tackle the challenges of mobile devices.
- gavinpc 9y agoAmen. And while we're at it, let's throw some of the credit to XPath. Wouldn't you like concise, declarative traversal for your data structures? (Yeah, I'm sure somebody's already built it.) I don't think I agree about responsive css, but that's another discussion.
- err4nt 9y agoI experiment with using XPath selectors to apply styling :D Can reach many things CSS selectors arent designed to reach!
- tannhaeuser 9y agoI've done quite extensive XSLT development and like it for particular tasks, but I think XSLT's weak points are 1. It's Turing-complete, which means you can just use any other language for XML manipulation as well such as JavaScript (has DOM language bindings) or Prolog (rule/pattern based like XSLT) or maybe LISP (like DSSSL was). The benefit is that using a mainstream language gives you better mindshare and infrastructure such as APIs for DB access, IDE support for testing, etc. which I found inevitably necessary in every large XSLT project 2. XSLT 2 and 3 only has a single implementation (Saxon) by the same author as the XSLT spec itself - not my idea of a standard (and, in fact, not meeting W3C's criteria of at least two interoperable implementations). XSLT works well if you need lots of literal XML content to be produced to the output, but will get verbose, degenerative, and awkward (priority rules) for highly dynamic content.