[REBOL] Re: The XML Schema compiler
From: robert:muench:robertmuench at: 11-Nov-2002 16:47
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]]
> On Behalf Of bryan
> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 4:22 PM
> To: [rebol-list--rebol--com]
> Subject: [REBOL] Re: The XML Schema compiler
> As the original post in the thread was about the advisability
> of building an XSD to Rebol compiler my post on the subject
> is a perhaps overlong rant against the idea. :)
Hi, no problem ;-) But wasn't it XSD to Rebol? What I don't like about
all this XML stuff is: It's bloated! And everyone is coming along with
mega-heavy Java solutions to the simplest problems... I will never
> Agreed, I would rather use Rebol's datatypes than XSD, hence
> my argument against an XSD to Rebol compiler.
Yep. Using the Rebol typesystem as base for other implementations that
need to serialize data is a very good idea :-)) I have done it myself.
No need to think about it once again. And the nice side-effect? You can
directly use it with Rebol :-))
> I understand that a lot of people don't like XSLT, it most
> certainly takes a good deal of time to learn to use it to
> it's best abilities. I think once people have learned this
> they will find it an extremely useful tool for processing Xml trees.
IMO the idea about XSLT is OK. I don't like to much the syntax etc.
Again, here I think the Rebol guys have done a great job to simplify
quite complex problems. IMO XSLT is a bit to complex for what it's
intended. But hey, it could be that I just don't know enough about XSLT.
I don't vote against it because XSLT is set in the market. So we better
support it today than tomorrow. But using Rebol as a hidden-wappon to do
XSLT faster and better than others is a very promising solution. I just
don't want to touch XSLT directly. Robert