Re: [xslt] Any interest in an alternative syntax for XSLT?

[Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 12:39:46PM +0200, Bjorn Reese wrote:
> Phil Shafer wrote:
> 
> > When we exposed our XSLT scripting ability to customers, we found them
> > quite hostile to xslt syntax.  I looked around for alternatives, but
> 
> I have the same experience.
> 
> > I'd love to contribute this code back to the libxslt sources, if
> > you are interested.
> 
> I think that SLAX is brilliant. I really like the idea of syntactic
> sugar-coating the XML syntax.

  Is SLAX defined independantly ? Do you have stable pointers to the 
spec ? 

> Ultimately this is Daniel's decision, but I certainly recommend that it
> is included, partly because SLAX is going to be a productivity boost to
> stylesheet developers, and partly because SLAX will give libxml a
> competitive edge (at least for a while).

  I'm concerned by 2 things:
    - this open the door to other 'I want my own representation in'
      which like in the case of 'binary XML' is not something I feel
      great about
    - the size and stability of that code base and associated specification

> I have only browsed through the documentation, but I have a few
> suggestions.
> 
> > ** The "mode" Statement
> 
> >     match * {
> >         mode "one";
> >         <one> .;
> >     }
> 
> The "mode" looks odd inside the block. How about something like this?
> 
>    match * with mode "one" {
>      <one> .;
>    }

  XQuery also has n XML chunk in strange format. 
  Relax-NG also has a simplified form (in never finished to implement)

> > ** The "priority" Statement
> 
> >     match * {
> >         priority 10;
> >         <output> .;
> >     }
> 
> Same comment as for the mode statement.
> 
>    match * with priority 10 {
>      <output> .;
>    }
> 
> > ** The "ns" Statement
> 
> >     ns junos = "http://www.juniper.net/junos/";;
> 
> Consider calling this "namespace" (as used in C++).

  I'm a bit worried. One safe thing would be to provide the code on
xmlsoft.org explaining how to integrate it even if not standard, then
proceed depending on feedback.
  Or make it a non-standard option, compiled only on request, I'm 
undecided, more feedback would be welcome.

Daniel

-- 
Red Hat Virtualization group http://redhat.com/virtualization/
Daniel Veillard      | virtualization library  http://libvirt.org/
veillard redhat com  | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine  http://rpmfind.net/