vincent wrote:
XML and XSL are not really standards. Some poeple say they are, but
if the description contains "extensible" and you can expand it yourself, it's not a standard.
It is a standard and when the tools behave correctly it works fine.
Basically neither XML nor XSL do anything that you can't do with HTML.
XML and XSL just let you use user-defined shortcuts, something we've all been using since the good old days of PERL.
It sounds like you are arguing from a position of ignorance. Having a standard human readable way of representing data with clear tools to manipulate/select it is much better than having to hack yet another slight variation on a perl text parser.
And now we have PHP instead of PERL.
A well-programmed function library/class will do you more good than XML/XSL.
Think of templates etc.
I am thinking of templates, that is why I use XML instead of yet another non-standard file format that requires me to reinvent the wheel yet again.
XML comes with the appropriate parsers and manipulation tools so one doesn't have to rewrite it. It is far more generalised and has a great utility when one wants some form of structured data that can be validated.
Of course it isn't the only way to do things but it is quicker and far nicer than many other ways.
For instance, when I need to put up a new page on my web site I write with logical tags that describe the content and have strict bounds on the structure. This data file can then be transformed in many ways using different XSL schema. I don't need to touch the program code to modify the page, just the schema that describes how the page should be represented (even to the per IP number level if I want). Yes it could be done with Perl (which I use extensively) but I have found the XML approach to be cleaner, neater, and quicker.
In the end it's all HTML anyway :-)
You couldn't be further from the truth..
..d