Is there anyone working on a binary version of XML?
Stephen D. Williams <sdw@l...> wrote: >I don't understand how to use XSL in a general way to acheive a 'delta tree' architecture. I >have a vague idea, but nothing that I could see being automated sufficiently. Can you >elaborate? The following (from section 2.7.12 of the current XSL draft): <xsl:template match="*|@*|comment()|pi()|text()"> <xsl:copy> <xsl:apply-templates select="*|@*|comment()|pi()|text()"/> </xsl:copy> </xsl:template> Will copy all input to the output without modification. You can then add templates to do specific modifications. For example: <xsl:template match="TAG/@ATTR[.='OldValue'"> <xsl:attribute name="ATTR"> NewValue </xsl:attribute> </xsl:template> Will take all 'TAG' elements in the input document which have an 'ATTR' attribute whose value is 'OldValue' and change its value to 'NewValue'. Given the power of XSL match patterns and the power of the construction elements, I think you can express any reasonable 'delta' on the input XML tree. Of course, this is outside the scope of the XSL intent as it stands today. <Rant-and-Rave> The transformation part of XSL is just what we need for: - An XML query language. Think about it - an XML query language should (i) be XML; (ii) allow selecting arbitrary parts of the input XML document(s); (iii) allow constructing result XML document(s). The transformational part of XSL already does 80% of that. Does anyone consider making XQL a proper superset of XSL? Not a chance. Everyone is intent on creating a new language. XQL at least reuses the match pattern syntax, while inventing a new incompatible way of creating the results tree; XML-QL goes for broke and reinvents the whole thing. - A standard way to convert XML documents to legacy non-XML languages. Oops, I just said non-XML languages. Excuse me. - New and unexpected uses, such as the one above: expressing differences between XML trees (which by itself has a lot of interesting applications). But no, due to historical reasons XSL was created as part of a style language, so we'll just have to use a different language for each of the above uses and any new one which comes along (making sure they are incompatible, of course). Never mind that CSS is alive and kicking and supported by the very same W3C is another way of specifying style. Never mind that CSS is staying away from anything which might look like XML syntax, and is well along the way of inventing a new match pattern language of its own, whose only advantage over the XSL one is that it is incompatible with it. I'm sure it all makes sense for _someone_. Whatever the reasons are, what I see is "Job security for XML professionals for the next millennium". </Rant-and-Rave> Sorry, I just had to get it off my chest :-) Have fun, Oren Ben-Kiki xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format