Comments on: s-expressions vs xml http://uucode.com/blog/2006/07/26/s-expressions-vs-xml/ advocating olpa's open source developments Thu, 17 May 2012 20:41:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.3 By: olpa http://uucode.com/blog/2006/07/26/s-expressions-vs-xml/#comment-15675 olpa Mon, 11 Apr 2011 10:39:48 +0000 http://uucode.com/blog/2006/07/26/s-expressions-vs-xml/#comment-15675 I don't know why xslt 1.0 was not implemented, maybe because people could transform xml with lisp itself, without less powerful xsl 1.0. As of xslt 2.0, and 2nd version of xml standards, it is not fun to work on commitee-designed bloated standards. I don’t know why xslt 1.0 was not implemented, maybe because people could transform xml with lisp itself, without less powerful xsl 1.0. As of xslt 2.0, and 2nd version of xml standards, it is not fun to work on commitee-designed bloated standards.

]]> By: Terje Norderhaug http://uucode.com/blog/2006/07/26/s-expressions-vs-xml/#comment-15674 Terje Norderhaug Sat, 09 Apr 2011 17:47:04 +0000 http://uucode.com/blog/2006/07/26/s-expressions-vs-xml/#comment-15674 The introduction to your essay proposes that if "Lisp languages are ideal for implementing XML standards [...] Then why we don't have an XSLT processor written in Common Lisp? However, the Interaction web application server has included a Common Lisp based XSLT processor for more than a decade. Interaction also implements other XML related standards in Common Lisp, and was AFAIK the first web application server to embrace XML. The introduction to your essay proposes that if “Lisp languages are ideal for implementing XML standards […] Then why we don’t have an XSLT processor written in Common Lisp?

However, the Interaction web application server has included a Common Lisp based XSLT processor for more than a decade. Interaction also implements other XML related standards in Common Lisp, and was AFAIK the first web application server to embrace XML.

]]>