RE: SGML complexity
> > This has been said by current XSLT editor here > > [http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/x-xslt/] > > Therefore with whom would i agree with he claiming that XSLT > is PL or with you claiming is *not* a PL. The point I was making in that article, and it's still my view now, is that XSLT is a special-purpose programming language. It is programming, but it's specialized to the operations involved in transforming trees. That means, for example, that it wouldn't be my first choice of language for writing a parser (your maths example). I try to show in the article that it's capable of more than some people then imagined. These days I think its computational power is common knowledge. In a later paper I showed how XSLT 2.0 extends the scope of applicability by illustrating its use for up-conversion tasks, and I've also seen applications that stretch the boundaries in quite sensible ways to present numerical data in the form of SVG graphics. It's always been a bit of an open question how far it was wise to go; for example there are certainly use cases where trigonometrical functions would be useful. In my view, we've got it roughly right in XSLT 2.0 - some people think the language has grown too big and some would have liked it to go further, for example to support higher order functions, but you can't expect to please everyone. Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
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