All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
use Perl Log In
jjohn (22)
(email not shown publicly)
http://taskboy.com/
AOL IM: taskboy3000 (Add Buddy, Send Message)
Perl hack/Linux buff/OSS junkie.
XML, SGML, XSLT, DSSSL, Oh my!
Ill-conceived rant mode: on.
Gods. It's no wonder at all the XML/XSLT aren't getting traction. It's hard to find non-broken tools to make document processing a reality (the docbook folks make changes that the Fop group can't handle breaking the whole processing chain). But the tools are there, you say? Let me be clear: HTML is rendered in a web browser. Hell, even a crappy web browser like lynx is good enough to start learning HTML. As a user, I get immediate feedback on my markup. With XML and XSLT, there should be an equally easy way to do get pretty feedback. I've been reaching into the depths of docbook (both SGML and XML [don't ask why]) like a veterinarian delivering a calf and it's been just about as pretty. DTD management is insane and the tools (jade for DSSSL and xsltproc for XSLT and then Apache's Fop) are one step up from hacks. This is crazy. If I can't get PS from docbook easily, I should just stick to latex or even POD. After much fighting and reading and reading and reading, I have figured out how to use these tools but things have got to get much better in 2002 for these tools or XML will soon go the way of punch cards.
For the record, I don't get off on XML at all (unless people are buying my book). I care about what works, what's easy and what's available.
Grr. Grr, I say!
--Larry Wall in stab.c from the perl source code
XML already is going the way of the punchcard (Score:2)
It has been around how long now and how many people have actually figured out how to use it and what to use it for? Stick with TeX and LaTeX and wait for the fad to blowover.
Re:XML already is going the way of the punchcard (Score:2)
Lots of people are using XML. Lots of people are using XML successfully. More importantly perhaps, lots of people are using XML unsuccessfully because they have overblown expectations of it (a.k.a. hype).
But XML, in the document management field and elsewhere, works. I can write a book for O'Reilly in DocBook, and they can chuck it through their processing toolset and have a book come out the other end. I can use SAX tool suites to process DBI and Excel files the sam
Re:XML already is going the way of the punchcard (Score:2)
Power is often passed over for simplicity as nature favours the path of least resistance...this would not be XML. DTDs are stupefying and the mess of CPAN modules is beyond even my ability to figure out which goes where when and how. I have lurked for many moons on the XML list and I have yet to really understand who and what are in which ring of the circus.
I don't think people have lofty expectations I just think they're as confused as I am as to what this blob of stuff is really supposed to do and how
Re:XML already is going the way of the punchcard (Score:2)
Which is why a lot of this is a good thing. To be able to learn a single toolset (XML processing) and apply it to DBI or Excel spreadsheets, or whatever you may please, is a simple thing and a good thing.
Re:XML already is going the way of the punchcard (Score:2)
XML is not simple. That's the problem. Have you tried wading through the XML mess on CPAN lately? Nothing seems at all simple about that.
Re:XML already is going the way of the punchcard (Score:3, Insightful)
I fixed the SAX "problem", now it's time to fix the modules problem.
(note: you could say the exact same thing about all the templating modules, or all the DBIx modules, but nobody bitches about that. Sheesh)
Re:XML already is going the way of the punchcard (Score:1)
I think it's a little unfair to pick on the XML modules for not being intuitive. Have you tried doing a search on Apache lately? Holy clusterfuck Batman...
I agree (Score:2)
As far as XSLFO goes, the people I know who write books with it use PassiveTeX, not FOP, because FOP's output still sucks (i.e. doesn't use TeX formatting rules). However PassiveTeX is even harder to
Re:I agree (Score:2)
I wasn't trolling actually...
Re: Splitting hairs (Score:1)
TeX is a publishing markup language, and docbook is a technical publication markup language.
The point is ASCII is easy to author in (at least I think so). Book printers need PS or PDF to print. Here, the source code (TeX or XML) is a convenience to the authors. The real world needs the information in a format usable by their tools. TeX isn't at all a general replacement for XML, but in the realm of publishing, it's often a better fit than docbook.
Let me be plain: I want XML and docbook to succeed. I do
Re: Splitting hairs (Score:2)
But yes, we agree.
DocBook (Score:1)
Nice, you've found out that DocBook sucks. Hmmmm. How you get from there to the fact that XML sucks is a bit beyond me though.
In XML, you don't need DTDs. The fact that you chose to inflict those horrors on yourself is, well, not a problem with XML :) Also, XSLT are very much there and very mature, I fail to see how you managed to have a problem there.
-- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]
A few clarifying points (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm happy to have provided some talking points and perhaps a minor distraction from Bigger Things with my rant. Lest hfb get beat up too much for agreeing with, let me make the following points:
Re:A few clarifying points (Score:1)