[exprla-devel] Re: The structure of classes in XPL

[reid_spencer <ras...@re...>]

--- In xpl-dev@y..., "Garreth Galligan" <garreth.galligan@o...> wrote:
Richard Anthony Hein wrote:

 >XPL doesn't need classes, but to make people comfortable we 
 >can make them using XPointer

This is fascinating, but I'm afraid I'm not too up to speed with 
XPointer. Do you know of any good reference material? W3C 
documentation is a slow, tedious read.

  >Subject: [XPL] requirements 
  >3.  XPL must be human readable.

Agree with you absolutely, otherwise there would be no point in using 
a markup language for the job.


Kurt Cagle wrote:

  >I think the idea of writing a general meta-language for 
  >programming is ill-advised

With you on this one; if I'm right about your meaning in 'general 
programming' as raised in some early posts which, more or less, 
envisage XPL as storage/transfer/interface/whatever medium for 
various existing languages. Great science, but a little too 'Star 
Trek' for me right now. However I'm still on the side of XPL as 
a 'meta-language' of sorts, for creating XPL based micro languages.

  >Let's concentrate on extending what already exists, 
  >making XSLT more robust,

Well with you in the spirit of the concept, which is to use 
applications of XPL for operation on other ML's. But it would take a 
lot of persuading to get me over my innate dislike of XSLT. It's such 
an *ugly* language, and is rooted in my mind as a tool for 
publishingMLs most likely to be produced in a WYSIWYG application. 
One needs to take a very deep breath before trying to hand code the 
stuff. I'm inclined to think of XSLT as a round hole to XPL's square 
peg, but then my experience with XSLT is hardly extensive and I'm 
open to persuasion...
--- End forwarded message ---