RE: Quasi-Literals and XML

David Carlisle wrote:

> Of course the comment that you quote
> 
> > "XSL is a specialized language built specifically for 
> transforming XML, into
> > XML or other notations, but not for transforming other 
> notations into XML.
> 
> is perfectly valid, and is explictly stated by the XSLT spec.
> So I don't think that is necessarily a "criticism" of xsl, just a
> statement of fact.

I agree with you there. But that quote continues by saying that the most
damaging fact about XSL is that it is not Turing-complete and is therefore
severely restricted in the transformations it can express. 

My point is that in the first place the statement that XSL is not
Turing-complete is debatable, in the second place I'm not convinced that XSL
is severely restricted in the possible transformations, and in the third
place I wonder whether there is a causal relationship between lack of
turing-completeness of XSL and restrictions in possible transformations. 

Linda

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