Re: XSLT 2.0 or XSLT 1.0 -- which is more elegant? (Wa

Dimitre Novatchev wrote:

> Why it can't be... let's say RNG ? :o)

I also prefer RNG over WXS. But it is true that for assigning data types
to nodes in XML document WXS is better because it can assign these types
  unambiguously.

In RNG you can create ambiguos content models which is great for
modeling document structures but not so great if you need tight
data-binding. But if you can limit yourself to unambiguous patterns in
RNG than it would be possible to graft RNF onto XSLT 2.0. Simple things
like assigning datatypes will work. But there are some more fundamental
changes needed. In WXS you can derive new datatypes using type hierarchy
and XPath provides access to this sort of information
(element(*,datatype)). In RNG you usually extend named patterns because
there is no inheritance in OO sense as in WXS. But it looks pretty
strange to reference named patterns in stylesheets -- named patterns are
used to internally organize schema.

Anyway it would be interesting to see some more detailed study about
integration of subsetted RNG into XSLT 2.0.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
   Jirka Kosek     e-mail: jirka@xxxxxxxx     http://www.kosek.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------
   Profesionalnm 9kolenm a poradenstvm v oblasti technologim XML.
      Podmvejte se na na9 novl spu9tln} web http://DocBook.cz
        Podrobn} pxehled 9kolenm http://xmlguru.cz/skoleni/
------------------------------------------------------------------

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/x-pkcs7-signature which had a name of smime.p7s]