[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: XSL Requirements (was: Microsoft extensions to XSL)
Oren Ben-Kiki wrote: > As Didier PH Martin (mailto:martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) correctly pointed out, a > pattern matching language is never sufficient by itself to do general > structural transformations. Right. But then, XSL is not intended as a general structural transformation language. Its a style language that includes the ability to do some transformation as part of the styling step. > He's also correct in that it would have been > interesting to start with a procedural language (say, JavaScript) and add > pattern matching facilities to it, instead of starting with a pattern > matching language and adding procedural hooks to it. You mean, like Spice? > The benefits of XSL's approach is that the simple things are less > intimidating then they would have been in a souped-up JavaScript approach. Yes. While a programattic approach always in theory yeilds more power, this is rather like a customer looking to buy a wordprocesso and being sold a C compiler "now you can write whatever you want ... in theory ... " -- Chris 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
|