Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: XLink transformations
 Hi Thanks for the replies (and especially Claude's notes 1-7), which I very much appreciated. Thoughts such as Claude's were indeed behind my question as I did maths at uni 20 years ago... and still have vague memories... Anyway, the point where I started is that documents get transformed through a whole XSLT pipeline and it just looks to me like XPath struggles with this (or rather, doesn't cope at-all). But this is probably getting off-topic and my thoughts are probably as ill-formed as most of the XML I produce, so here are just a few further comments: > Some stylesheets can be written to process XML usefully regardless of its schema Sure, e.g. the identity transform. There would have to be a universal schema U of all well-defined XML docs. > XLink isn't an instance of XSLT Sure I understand that XPath as it's defined is not a transformation, my point was that what it was trying to achieve could perhaps be alternatively thought of in that way. i.e. If I have a schema then there is a set of schemas <b>S</b>, all the schemas enabling links between the elements of S. (Looking at Claude's note 5 this is probably an equivalence relation of some kind as all you are doing is adding some (conceptual) <A>s basically). What would such schemas look like and what would possible mappings from S to them look like? > Unlike SGML <snip> Sure, I know nothing of SGML and understand that these issues may have been addressed there and got lost from XML. > [vaguely addressing some of Claude's other points, esp. 6] I think one could define "restrictions" of schemas i.e. a restricted schema S(R) of S would be one where every transform S(R) -> S had an inverse. (i.e. you lose information going from S(R) to S). I think schemas generated by XPath would be restrictions for instance. Words like "equivalence relation" are drifting through my head. Anyway, to sum up, it still seems to me that a given XSLT transform can only be meaningful within the context of its source and destination schemas, and XLink "defines a transformation" (implicitly) from a document in a schema S to a document in a schema S', and (although S' is quite closely bound to S as Claude points out) it still seems like a transformation which maps from schema S to schema T is going to hit problems if one tries to apply it to get from S' to T. Unless someone can work out some general rules. Unfortunately I don't have anything concrete to offer on that front. Thanks again, the replies were very much appreciated, I'll go back into hiding now. Steve 
|
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
|
|||||||||
