On Oct 19, 2004, at 4:39 PM, trans. (T. Onoma) wrote:

> On Tuesday 19 October 2004 04:22 pm, Florian Weber wrote:
> | On Oct 19, 2004, at 16:52 Uhr, trans. (T. Onoma) wrote:
> | > Nice. Thanks you for such a great reply! Very informative.
> | >
> | > Why do you avoid XSLT? Because it is slow? Or?
> |
> | you will run into tons of situations where xslt can't do what you
> | wanna do, because it's based on xml.. and when it's possible
> | you are either forced to duplicate code or using a even more
> | verbose way of expressing what you wanna do..
> |
> | well, and sooner or later its verbosity will also annoy the hell out 
> of
> | you.
> |
> | personally i would never recommend anybody to use xslt if you
> | are not absolutely forced to or doing something very simple.
>
> That's too bad. So there is no _worthy_ standard declarative XML
> transformation language then? So much for standards. I will use Ruby. 
> Thanks.

Standards are great for some things, awful for others. Data interchange 
and compatibility is a place where standards make our lives much 
easier. Turing-completeness is a place where standards are much less 
helpful. (Of course, the line between the two isn't always clear ...)

F.