On Sun, 2013-06-30 at 09:49 +0200, Wolfgang Laun wrote:
[...]
Conclusions
Perl's CPAN is a great asset. Certainly, the quality of its offerings varies,
but the packages are tested and users report on their experience. (Why
doesn't XSLT have anything like it?)
XSLT 3 will have package support, and CXAN will be more useful then.
It's coming, albeit a decade on the late side.
Ken used a proprietary (?) solution for embedding documentation that can
be extracted into HTML. Now that's great, but it is a solitary answer to the
problem.
Not proprietary but a Ken-only convention.
Perl's pod is a somewhat clunky solution but it is supported with
a rich toolset, along with the Perl distribution. I consider the
existence of a documentation format that is defined along with the
language as "state of
the art" and essential for sustainable SW development.
I would encourage you to join the expath and exslt efforts - there's an
expath W3C community group.
XSLT is "special purpose" for XML handling and consequently easy to use,
but it isn't better than the average language for string processing.
"better" is subjective, or at least contextual. A strength of XML is
that you can do text processing even if you do not consider yourself to
be a "hard-core programmer". For many such people it's easier to work in
XSLT than in Perl or Python.
For my part I almost always use Perl to do "upconversions" into XML; I
then use an XML parser (e.g. "xmllint --noout" fits well with "make") at
every stage where I expect XML to be well-formed.
Which Perl module did you use to write XML?
Liam
--
Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--