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

RE: Style vs. transformation

Subject: RE: Style vs. transformation
From: Rob McDougall <RMcDouga@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 17:22:00 -0500
xml dialect transform
Wait a sec here.  XSL is an XML "meta-tool".  It works on any XML
dialect.  Wouldn't you foresee other tools that also work on any XML
dialect?  Does each of these tools also need to implement its own
transformation capability?  I would hope not.

By separating out the transformation into a separate item, every meta
tool doesn't have to re-implement the same set of transformation
functions.  This seems the most logical approach IMHO.

You say that "style language is already essentially a transformation".
I disagree.  There are two separate mechanisms going on here.  The first
mechanism transforms the tree structure of the incoming document to
something that matches the desired output.  The second mechanism
attaches style-related semantics to the newly structured tree.  The
first mechanism is one that would prove generally useful to a large
variety of tools that operate on XML.  The second is only useful in the
context it's intended for (creating output).

IMO, the only reason the latter looks like a transformation is because
of the mechanism the creators of XSL chose to use in assigning semantics
to the transformed tree.  They chose to do so by using fixed tag names
that represent flow objects.  If they had chosen to use a declarative
mapping syntax (e.g. something like "tag Author = flowobject paragraph")
we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Rob

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Paul Prescod [SMTP:papresco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent:	Tuesday, March 03, 1998 4:50 PM
>To:	xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject:	Re: Style vs. transformation
>
>Richard Light wrote:
>> 
>
>[snip]
>
>> If we do have to invent something, then
>> I am simply suggesting that we look to DSSSL-transform for ideas rather
>> than starting from scratch.
>
>I think that Jade's transformation back-end is a more appropriate guide.
>That is essentially what you suggested when you spoke of running "XSL
>twice". But I still don't think that we should require a separate level
>of transformation when the style language is already essentially a
>transformation.
> 
> [snip] 
>
>Paul Prescod  - http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco
>
>[Woody Allen on Hollywood in "Annie Hall"]
>Annie: "It's so clean down here."
>Woody: "That's because they don't throw their garbage away. They make 
>        it into television shows."
>
>
> XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list


Current Thread

PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!

Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.