Re: XSL controversy

James Clark <jjc@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> - XSLT is better at down translations that up translations; if your
> transformation is going from a less-structured form to a more-structured
> form, XSLT may not be a good choice
> 
> - XSLT is better at transformations on structure than transformations on
> content; if your transformation is doing complex transformations on the
> text content of the document, XSLT may not be a good choice

The technique that I use is to get XSLT to create input for a tool
appropriate for the transformation.  For example, I process a lot of
documentation with program examples for which I want to provide syntax
highlighting.  In order to add highlighting markup, I use XSLT to
extract code fragments and create a file of emacs lisp which when
executed outputs a file of XML with the code fragments augmented with
highlighting markup obtained using font-lock mode.  Emacs _is_ the
right tool for syntax highlighting.  To attempt this directly in XSLT
would not be a fun exercise :-)

Cheers,

-- 
Dr. Denys Duchier			Denys.Duchier@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Forschungsbereich Programmiersysteme	(Programming Systems Lab)
Universitaet des Saarlandes, Geb. 45	http://www.ps.uni-sb.de/~duchier
Postfach 15 11 50			Phone: +49 681 302 5618
66041 Saarbruecken, Germany		Fax:   +49 681 302 5615


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