XML 👏 AND 👏 XSLT 👏 SUCK 👏

I really enjoyed working with those technologies.

@Demolishun Unfortunately that’s a version of reality that is not available to me. 🤷

@Cvrsor Are you fighting libraries? I had good luck using lxml module for Python.

Now apply some SOAP and we can discuss your issues.

@Demolishun I’ll keep that in mind. Currently using java which might be part of the issue. Trying to troubleshoot ancient xslt files with a library that isn’t very debug-friendly.

@C0D4 Luckily I haven’t had to work with many SOAP libraries.

@Cvrsor take it from someone that does.... don't!

Depends on usage.

It's horrible to write, too wordy for me, but it does have some advantages !

I would fuck...eh use it !

@NoToJavaScript XML is the perfect blend of terrible to write AND terrible to read!

@NoToJavaScript exactly but people just like to complain to "old and less cool" tech ... I want to see them apply transformations to json

@dontbeevil people keep mentioning transformations. What would be a practical use case? I never encountered one.

@Lensflare We have a print function that was producing html for showing on an embedded web page. We wanted to be able to convert that output to another format. The libraries we were using took out webkit from their offering for code compiled with mingw. So I needed to change the output to be able to produce a smaller subset of html as our options were less capable for embedded html. So I opted to produce XML as an intermediate format. Then I used a xslt transform to produce the html subset. The intent is to produce a different output later by adding a transform. Because the output does not have to be xml at all. We may decide to produce QML or Javascript or JSON. The xslt code is trivial for this purpose. Will we write this transform later? No idea. But I prefer XML as an intermediate format to HTML. Would JSON had been a better format? Not sure, as it would require code to transform it into something else. I still feel like the xslt transform is simpler.