RE: Style vs. transformation
Rob McDougall writes: > So now that I concede that there's only a requirement for one > language, my next question is "Is that language XSL?". To put > things another way, "Can I use XSL as a general XML->XML > transformation language?". It's certainly an interesting idea. Here's one possible syntax for a rule that would transform <para>...</para> to <P x="y">...</P>: <rule> <target-element type="para"/> <xml-element type="P"> <xml-attribute-list> <xml-attribute name="x" value="y"/> </xml-attribute-list> <children/> </xml-element> </rule> James already did something like this with Jade. From an implementation perspective, this is an easy one (just define a set of XML flow object classes); from a standards perspective, it may not be: it depends on the boundaries that the XSL group has accepted for their work. All the best, David -- David Megginson ak117@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Microstar Software Ltd. dmeggins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/dmeggins/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
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