RE: Style vs. transformation

Paul, your arguments about the style language being a transformation are
compelling, and I'm afraid I must reluctantly agree.  That's what I get
for arguing with someone who's been thinking about this longer than I
have :).

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?".

By my reading of the spec, I'd have to say "maybe".  As I understand it,
the actions in the construction rules may only contain flow objects and
macros. Macros are defined in terms of flow objects.  Flow objects are
either pre-defined by the processor or defined by the user (per 6.3
Extensibility).

Section 6.3 seems a bit vague on what the mechanism for creating new
flow objects will be.  Can flow objects be defined using ECMAScript?
Can flow objects be defined using native libraries?

If I can extend XSL to do general XML->XML transformations, I will be
happy.

Rob


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