|
[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
[Recent Entries]
[Reply To This Message]
Re: saxon:evaluate() in schematron
Subject: Re: saxon:evaluate() in schematron
From: Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 11:40:58 -0400
|
Hi,
Rick's advice is always excellent, but any good advice can be applied
badly. And I don't find that the requirement for portability always
trumps everything. (In fact sometimes it doesn't trump anything.) In
Schematron (we are OT), maintainability and extensibility are often more
important: it depends on the use case, I think.
Then too, Rick's post is in reaction to an extreme example, and
explicitly allows for three exceptions, including "... where it is more
convenient to express some very convoluted XPath access as a function
because of information hiding (rather than abstraction) reasons." I
think Matt has one of these.
As for "wean[ing] ourselves of the for-loop mentality", I dare say Matt
has done that long ago. :-) In fact, we have to do more XQuery-like
for-looping here to do without the stylesheet function than we would
using it.
Nevertheless I'm grateful for the link, and seeing a solution without a
function shows we have choices.
Cheers,
Wendell
On 5/21/2012 5:37 PM, Imsieke, Gerrit, le-tex wrote:
Wendell, Matt,
I recently came across this blog post by Rick Jelliffe, Do you need to
make your own XSLT2 function definitions when using Schematron?
http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2010/09/do-you-need-to-make-your-own-x.html
Although it is tempting for XSLT2 pundits to introduce user-defined
functions in their Schematrons, Ricks post has made me resist this
temptation every time since I read it. If only for the reason that
without user-defined XSLT functions, Schematron schemas are more
portable, as weve seen today.
Rick also proposes let as a tool to break up iterations or, as in
Matts example, complex expressions.
Ive reworked my solution using let:
<s:rule context="line">
<s:let name="outliers" value="
for $att in
(@x1, @x2)[
xs:integer(.) gt
xs:integer(../../../block[@n eq current()/@n]/@x2)
or
xs:integer(.) lt
xs:integer(../../../block[@n eq current()/@n]/@x1)
]
union
(@y1, @y2)[
xs:integer(.) gt
xs:integer(../../../block[@n eq current()/@n]/@y2)
or
xs:integer(.) lt
xs:integer(../../../block[@n eq current()/@n]/@y1)
]
return concat(name($att), '=', $att)
"/>
<s:report test="exists($outliers)">
Line <s:value-of select="@n"/> does not fit.
Offending coordinate(s): <s:value-of select="$outliers" />
</s:report>
</s:rule>
Gerrit
On 2012-05-21 23:17, Wendell Piez wrote:
Matt,
Of course, I forgot that you'll probably want, or need, the function
also to say as="xs:boolean". (And who knows what else.)
--
======================================================================
Wendell Piez mailto:wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mulberry Technologies, Inc. http://www.mulberrytech.com
17 West Jefferson Street Direct Phone: 301/315-9635
Suite 207 Phone: 301/315-9631
Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 301/315-8285
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in SGML and XML
======================================================================
 |
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
| RSS 2.0 |
|
| Atom 0.3 |
|
|
Cart
