RE: New/old pattern syntax, why can't we have both ?

> Is Xpointer intended to solve the problem of patterns?  It
> seems to me that patterns in XSL are much more complex than XPointers.  If
> XPointers could be used then I would very much agree with using them
instead
> of coming up with another syntax.

XPointers can't really be used for XSL and XSL patterns can't really be used
for XLink addressessing --- AS THEY CURRENTLY STAND.

I'm interested in exploring the possibility of expanding both to form a
superset tree addressing language.

What might make this difficult is that:

1. XSL patterns are generally interested in a class of nodes (eg "all the
elements of type 'emph'") whereas XPointers are generally interested in a
specific node.

2. The processing models are likely quite different. XPointers are used to
find nodes in a document whereas with XSL, you start with a node and try to
find the pattern that matches with the greatest specificity.

> If Xpointer is sufficient then much of this goes away because we will
> probably have an Xpointer parser available already (at least when
XPointers
> become widely used). If they are not sufficient, then we should use base
XML
> syntax.

I don't think XPointers are sufficient but I don't think it would take much
to make them so.

James

--
James Tauber / jtauber@xxxxxxxxxxx      http://www.jtauber.com/
Lecturer and Associate Researcher
Electronic Commerce Network             ( http://www.xmlinfo.com/
Curtin Business School                  ( http://www.xmlsoftware.com/
Perth, Western Australia                ( http://www.schema.net/


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