[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
RE: Style vs. transformation
Subject: RE: Style vs. transformation From: Rob McDougall <RMcDouga@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 10:20:47 -0500 |
Paul, your arguments about the style language being a transformation are compelling, and I'm afraid I must reluctantly agree. That's what I get for arguing with someone who's been thinking about this longer than I have :). So now that I concede that there's only a requirement for one language, my next question is "Is that language XSL?". To put things another way, "Can I use XSL as a general XML->XML transformation language?". By my reading of the spec, I'd have to say "maybe". As I understand it, the actions in the construction rules may only contain flow objects and macros. Macros are defined in terms of flow objects. Flow objects are either pre-defined by the processor or defined by the user (per 6.3 Extensibility). Section 6.3 seems a bit vague on what the mechanism for creating new flow objects will be. Can flow objects be defined using ECMAScript? Can flow objects be defined using native libraries? If I can extend XSL to do general XML->XML transformations, I will be happy. Rob XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Style vs. transformation, Sean Mc Grath | Thread | RE: Style vs. transformation, David Megginson |
Re: Style vs. transformation, Sean Mc Grath | Date | RE: Style vs. transformation, Rob McDougall |
Month |
Keywords