[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
The various discussions on types in XSLT 2.0 are interesting but there is one angle that I don't recall seeing discussed.
The thought goes something like this:
Some who object to XSLT 2.0 types complain (I don't think that is unfair) that a new class of error is introduced.
But, is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Some who are aerated by this possible new class of errors in XSLT 2.0 are undoubtedly enthusiastic for XML.
Yet XML, viewed from the perspective of, for example, an HTML page author does just the same thing - it introduces a new class of errors. HTML, and SGML, allow omission of end tags, of quotes on attribute values etc. So XML introduces new classes of errors that are, not to put too fine a point on it, show stoppers for markup not written according to the rules.
Just as an improperly written XSLT 2.0 stylesheet may not run at all so an improperly written XHTML page may not display at all, while its looser HTML counterpart does.
If a new class of errors introduced by XML is "good", why is a new class of errors introduced by types in XSLT 2.0 "bad"?
Andrew Watt
P.S. Yes, I know there are many differences in detail but I thought it might be an interesting angle to discuss.
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
[xsl] An interesting angle on types in XSLT 2.0?
|
Subject: [xsl] An interesting angle on types in XSLT 2.0? From: Andrew Watt <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 10:24:12 +0100 |
The various discussions on types in XSLT 2.0 are interesting but there is one angle that I don't recall seeing discussed.
The thought goes something like this:
Some who object to XSLT 2.0 types complain (I don't think that is unfair) that a new class of error is introduced.
But, is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Some who are aerated by this possible new class of errors in XSLT 2.0 are undoubtedly enthusiastic for XML.
Yet XML, viewed from the perspective of, for example, an HTML page author does just the same thing - it introduces a new class of errors. HTML, and SGML, allow omission of end tags, of quotes on attribute values etc. So XML introduces new classes of errors that are, not to put too fine a point on it, show stoppers for markup not written according to the rules.
Just as an improperly written XSLT 2.0 stylesheet may not run at all so an improperly written XHTML page may not display at all, while its looser HTML counterpart does.
If a new class of errors introduced by XML is "good", why is a new class of errors introduced by types in XSLT 2.0 "bad"?
Andrew Watt
P.S. Yes, I know there are many differences in detail but I thought it might be an interesting angle to discuss.
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
| Current Thread |
|---|
|
| <- Previous | Index | Next -> |
|---|---|---|
| RE: [xsl] prevent linebreaks, Jarno . Elovirta | Thread | Re: [xsl] An interesting angle on t, W. E. Perry |
| RE: [xsl] Using or ignoring Types i, Andrew Watt | Date | Re: [xsl] Using or ignoring Types i, Mike Haarman |
| Month |