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