[sword-devel] XSLT vs. C++
admin at remza.co.uk
Mon Dec 6 04:00:24 MST 2010
Love in Christ,
On 30 November 2010 19:08, Troy A. Griffitts <scribe at crosswire.org> wrote:
> Having finally returned from a hectic 2 weeks of conferences, and lots
> to do before leaving for Christmas, I'm not sure I'm up for a heated,
> passionate debate about technologies right now, but by all means, please
> commence the public discussion.
> Let me start by saying that everyone (I believe) agrees that we would
> like to have an HTML output from the engine which is more generic and
> would allow CSS to be applied if a frontend would like to do this.
> Currently HTMLHREF output from the engine is used by the widest number
> of frontends (to my knowledge) and would benefit everyone involved by
> becoming much more generic. e.g.,
> <title> -> <h1>
> rather than
> <title> -> <b><br />
> <transChange type="added"> -> <span class="tcAdded">
> rather than
> <transChange type="added"> -> <i>
> I believe this will solve a number of issues and possibly get the BT and
> MacSword teams onboard to using the same HTML output filters as the
> other projects involve (or at least subclassing them and using the
> majority of their functionality).
> Now, as to the other issue of using XSLT internally in the engine to
> process OSIS -> HTML
> I will throw a few melons into the air for target practice, and let the
> shooting commence.
> *Multiple Language*
> XSLT is a programming language in the same sense that C++ is a
> programming language.
> The SWORD Project C++ engine is written in C++. It is not a Python
> engine; it is not a Perl engine; it is not a Java engine; it is C++.
> One might say, "Well, you can use XSLT from C++. Doesn't JSword do this
> from Java?" Well, yes, of course you can, and DM can comment, if he
> feels the desire to recommend his decision to encorporate an XSLT engine
> into the JSword logic flow. But simply because one CAN doesn't mean one
> SHOULD. We COULD encorporate a Perl text processing engine in our C++
> code, or an Awk processing engine... that doesn't mean we SHOULD. I'm
> sure some would say we SHOULD. And obviously DM has thought he SHOULD
> encorporate XSLT processing for JSword, so I'm not intending to say it
> is a BAD decision, just that it is not a decision I would make; in the
> same way as our projects each chose C++ vs. Java to implement our objective.
> *XSLT better than C++*
> One might say, "well, XSLT is better suited to process XML than C++."
> That's a loaded and unquantified statement.
> Certainly the C++ language specification doesn't include facilities to
> easily process XML, but that doesn't mean a plethora of C++ libraries
> don't exists for assisting in this task.
> The SWORD engine includes classes like XMLTag and SWBasicFilter which
> implement a SAX processing model.
> The current filters do not all use SWBasicFilter, nor XMLTag. They've
> been written over 15 years and many before these classes existed. Some
> are ugly and need to be rewritten for readability, certainly. But not
> necessarily in a different programming language.
> The task of enumerating all types of OSIS <title> tags, and deciding
> what to do with each, and how to classify all <title> tags from all
> possible OSIS documents into our enumeration is still going to be a
> complex task using XSLT. <title> is a complex example, but certainly
> not the most complex.
> It is a tall task to generalize all elements of all documents from all
> publishers into one conceptual model with one chosen output for a
> frontend-- whether that be for an audience on the Desktop, web-based, or
> a handheld.
> The complex processing required by the engine will require long, complex
> XSLT-- which likely will encorporate callbacks to C++. It will not be
> more simple-- only mixed language.
> *Semantic vs. Display*
> Some will say (and have), "well, let everything be display oriented and
> let the publisher decide". Fine, then you lose 2 things: the ability to
> display differently per user preference, per display device; and you
> also give up the promise to actually do any interesting research on the
> text. When you lose semantic markup, then you lose all interesting
> information about WHAT is being marked up.
> *More than a Rending Engine*
> The SWORD C++ Engine is more than simply a text rendering engine-- it is
> a Biblical text research engine.
> If I'd like to know the morphology of word 3 in 2Thes 2.13 of the WHNU
> Greek text, the entire program to do such is:
> SWMgr library;
> SWModule *whnu = library.getModule("WHNU");
> cout << "The morphology of word three is: " <<
> whnu->getEntryAttributes()["Word"]["003"]["Morph"] << endl;
> That reads nice (at least in my opinion). I don't need to know about
> XML, XSLT, care what markup the WHNU module uses, I don't even have to
> know how to make a SWORD filter. The current filters do all the work of
> breaking out these attributes and making them available in a nice and
> interesting map.
> And finally, if bullets aren't flying already, I'll stir the heat up with...
> XSLT sucks. A good C++ programmer can do anything in C++ better than
> any XSLT programmer.
> Have fun.
> PS. In summary, I understand the current filters are sometimes overly
> complex and need cleanup, standardization, etc. It comes down to the
> fact that they mostly work, and other things which don't get priority,
> so they don't get much attention. But honestly, I think one might be
> oversimplifying the problem at hand without realizing it, if one simply
> thinks switching to XSLT will make things easier.
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
More information about the sword-devel