[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
Karl,
I think you may be misinterpreting what Dimitre said. At any rate, I took "should have a solution without using it" to mean "will also be solvable without it". No warrant is given as to whether that solution is "good" in any sense -- it could be very long, or require heaps of time and memory to run.
I don't believe Dimitre intended to imply that because you always have an alternative, you should not use xxx:node-set(). There is a set of cases for which the alternative you have may be theoretically possible, but prohibitively difficult in practice.
Because it is Turning complete, one could (theoretically) implement a JVM in XSLT even without node-set(); that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
At 04:49 PM 4/29/2005, you wrote:
Re: [xsl] following-sibling and xsl:sort
Subject: Re: [xsl] following-sibling and xsl:sort From: Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:10:03 -0400 |
Karl,
I think you may be misinterpreting what Dimitre said. At any rate, I took "should have a solution without using it" to mean "will also be solvable without it". No warrant is given as to whether that solution is "good" in any sense -- it could be very long, or require heaps of time and memory to run.
I don't believe Dimitre intended to imply that because you always have an alternative, you should not use xxx:node-set(). There is a set of cases for which the alternative you have may be theoretically possible, but prohibitively difficult in practice.
Because it is Turning complete, one could (theoretically) implement a JVM in XSLT even without node-set(); that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Cheers, Wendell
At 04:49 PM 4/29/2005, you wrote:
> Therefore, any problem, which has solution using the xxx:node-set() > extension function should have a solution without using it.
I tend to disagree with that statement. I am in the middle of a project now which is using xxx:node-set() quite regularly processing xml fragments that have been transformed, grouped, sorted and in some case summarized in order to drive other data validation and lookups. I am having to ask questions like: "Does this item exist with this item? If so do they overlap, are they in correct combination with these other items..." and so on.. However, my XSLT is probably just ok, so maybe there is a better way. I can give some examples of the kind of data we are validating if you are interested.
On 4/28/05, Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 4/28/05, Karl Stubsjoen <kstubs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Is the obvious (and only) solution to use xxx:node-set against > > transformed / sorted XML? > > The answer follows from the fact that XSLT is Turing-complete. > Therefore, any problem, which has solution using the xxx:node-set() > extension function should have a solution without using it. > > In the case of grouping and then sorting, one such pure XSLT 1.0 > solution can be found at: > > http://www.biglist.com/lists/xsl-list/archives/200311/msg00659.html
====================================================================== 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 ======================================================================
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] following-sibling and xsl, Karl Stubsjoen | Thread | Re: [xsl] following-sibling and xsl, Wendell Piez |
Re: [xsl] Placing a DOCTYPE in an X, David Carlisle | Date | Re: [xsl] following-sibling and xsl, Wendell Piez |
Month |