[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
Re: New/old pattern syntax, why can't we have both ?
Subject: Re: New/old pattern syntax, why can't we have both ? From: James Robertson <jamesr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 22:33:00 +1000 |
At 19:23 19/08/1998 , you wrote: | I think that the solution is very simple. | | The new syntax should be seen as a shorthand for the full, verbose, XML | form. | | It would be the parser responsibility to translate the compact form into | the normalised, "canonical" fully-XML form so that the application | programmer can be oblivious of this syntax details. How does this resolve the problem? This approach means that: * Custom parsers still need to be written for XSL. * They still need to be able to parse the "shorthand" form. * They would then be required to do an additional mapping to a "long" form. Isn't this more work, not less, and still leaves the _very_ undesirable situation of having "non-XML" XML? Cheers, James ------------------------- James Robertson Step Two Designs Pty Ltd SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy http://www.steptwo.com.au/ jamesr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx "Beyond the Idea" ACN 081 019 623 XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
New/old pattern syntax, why can't w, Pasqualino \"Titto\" | Thread | RE: New/old pattern syntax, why can, James K. Tauber |
Re: Any examples of server side XML, Chris Lilley | Date | Modes (or lack thereof), Mark_Overton |
Month |
Keywords