Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search

[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 understand it.
> 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