Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[milo christiansen]

I spoke a little too soon... The problem is two-fold:
I fail at html.
and
I can't (easily) read in a structure definition.

It is easy to generate plain text docs for all the other types, the problem is that plain text is only a little better than the raw xmls. Also the struct definitions are hard to machine read, I did notice some xslt files that "lower" the xml to make it easier to read (and a quick look shows that my problem is addressed), but I have no way to apply those transformations using the standard go libraries.

If I can find a go library for dealing with the structure issue (and/or fix it some other way) then all I need is someone to write html templates for the output...
(needless to say this project is on hold for now...)

A quote I found when researching xslt (make that a few quotes):
“XML is a classic political compromise: it balances the needs of man and machine by being equally unreadable to both.” — Matthew Might
“XML combines the efficiency of text files with the readability of binary files” — unknown
"XSLT is a failure wrapped in pain. There’s no job for which XSLT is the right tool. If you think you found a job for which XSLT is a good tool, chances are the job itself is fucked up." — masklinn

[Nopenope]

“The essence of XML is this: the problem it solves is not hard, and it does not solve the problem well.” — Phil Wadler, POPL 2003
“Most xml i’ve seen makes me think i’m dyslexic. it also looks constipated, and two health problems in one standard is just too much.” — Charles Forsyth
“Some part of me desperately wants to believe that XML-RPC is some kind of elaborate joke, like a cross between Discordianism and IP Over Avian Carriers.” — Ex-Cyber on #plan9
“Any damn fool could produce a better data format than XML” — James Clark 2007-04-06
“XML is simply lisp done wrong.” — Alan Cox