[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: equivalentTo vs. XSLT

• To: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>
• Subject: Re: equivalentTo vs. XSLT
• From: Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@p...>
• Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 15:41:10 +0000
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• Organization: Propylon
• References: <BD2DBD26EE0BAA48B1A425C7BE7923002CFF9F@c...> <200211111241.54826.miles@m...> <01d401c28981$4b6b39a0$7c674544@n...> <200211111408.33635.miles@m...>
• Reply-to: bill.dehora@p..., bill.dehora@p...
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

Miles Sabin wrote:

 > The fact that DLs are so carefully crafted means that their scope is
 > pretty drastically limited. I think that it's quite likely that this
 > lack of expressiveness will cause major headaches in many, many
 > contexts: things which can be expressed quite deftly with 
arithmetic or
 > a sprinkling of second-order machinery, can be either 
inexpressible or
 > explosively long-winded in weaker systems.

Pat Hayes said made much the same.


Perhap web DLs will allow us to insert <script> tags... ;)

Bill de hÓra

--
Propylon
www.propylon.com

• References:
  • RE: XML/RDF
    • From: Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@c...>
  • Re: equivalentTo vs. XSLT
    • From: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>
  • Re: equivalentTo vs. XSLT
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@o...>
  • Re: equivalentTo vs. XSLT
    • From: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: equivalentTo vs. XSLT
• Next by Date: Re: equivalentTo vs. XSLT
• Previous by thread: Re: equivalentTo vs. XSLT
• Next by thread: Re: equivalentTo vs. XSLT
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread