RE: XSL as a better XPointer was RE: The Cathedral and the B
Jonathan Borden writes: > Chris Lilley wrote > > Ok, so now make it do the span (verse 12 *and* verse 13) > > "//chapter/v[12 $to$ 13]" > > >and for an > > encore, make it select "better Xpointer (less weight" in > > > > <foo>XSL patterns are a better XPointer <reason>(less weight more > > filling...)</reason></foo> > > > > foo/text()/region("better Xpointer (less weight") > > or > > foo/text()/region(21,50) Obviously, Chris and Jonathan speak about *TWO* different XSL versions. While Chris seems to have the current W3C XSL working draft of Dec 16, 1998 in mind, Jonathan speaks about a different XSL, maybe the XSL currently implemented in IE5. I, personally, hope that the final standardized version of XSL will support many XPointer features, especially ranges (spans). I hope, however, it will not use the syntax shown above. I dislike e.g. the '$' around the 'to', because it is different from the 'and' and 'or' operators. 'to' should become an operator (named 'to' not '$to$'). I am not sure, whether I like the indexing in the form '[no]'. This is very intuitive for programmers, but in XSL '[...]' means filtering. Although more cumbersome, it probably would prefer a function '[index(no)]', maybe in two variants ('index-of-type', 'index-of-any'). I would then also prefer a function 'between' over an operator 'to'. - Dieter 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