Subject: RE: Style vs. transformation From: Tony Stewart <tony.stewart@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 01:29:11 -0000 |
Brooke Smith wrote: "The question posed from looking at Omnimark is why use XML as the XSL script, where I see a problem with understanding what are actions and what is the output (Question - is <DIV> different to <children/>?)?" I think this is a valid complaint about the XSL syntax: there is no syntactic distinction between literals that are intended to be output as text strings, and keywords that trigger additional processing. This is difficult for people reading the XSL, and a real problem as soon as you try to output a literal flow object that happens to be an XSL keyword, such as "<children/>". (Not that I know of a reason to do this today, but who can speak for tomorrow?) And in general it's not good language design. Tony Stewart RivCom "Publishing Structured Information" www.rivcom.com XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: Style vs. transformation, Smith, Brooke | Thread | Re: Style vs. Transformation, Jacques Deseyne |
RE: Style vs. transformation, Smith, Brooke | Date | Re: Style vs. Transformation, Jacques Deseyne |
Month |