I mean a language, to be used on the server side on web servers, that
can talk to the database, the file system, and other protocols, and
dynamically assemble an HTML or XML view of a requested page to be
delivered to the client. "Bad" or not, this is a reality that nearly
EVERY web developer has to deal with frequently, and my question still
stands. :)
Also, I don't claim to know why you think preprocessors are "just bad",
but just because many of the current implementations are ugly doesn't
make the idea flawed.
~ Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Paul Adams [mailto:colin(_at_)colina(_dot_)demon(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 10:16 AM
To: xsl-list(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [xsl] LINQ to XML versus XSLT
"Scott" == Scott Trenda <Scott(_dot_)Trenda(_at_)oati(_dot_)net> writes:
Scott> My reply is getting a little off-topic, but on the same
Scott> note, why haven't we seen a widely-used XML-based HTML
Scott> preprocessor language yet?
Pre-processors are just bad. (If you mean macro processors, that
is. If you mean transformation languages, such as XSLT, then you have
the answer to your own question.)
--
Colin Adams
Preston Lancashire
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--