Re: Pattern and Action Containers (was: XSL Discussion)

[Sean Mc Grath <digitome@xxxxxx>]

>Jeremie Miller writes:
>
> > First off, I've mentioned in the past that I think a simple separation of
> > the patterns and actions should happen, like:
> > <rule>
> >   <pattern>
> >     <target-element type="p">
> >   </pattern>
> >   <action>
> >     <DIV>
> >       <children/>
> >     </DIV>
> >   </action>
> > </rule>
> > Much of what I'm going to be talking about is based on this...

[Dave Meginnson]
>
>Absolutely correct -- it is a basic principle of good document type
>design that a series of related elements should appear within a
>container. 

Agreed. Unfortunately XML itself is not a great example of
the containership philosophy:

I am thinking of XML Document := prolog element misc*

The prolog is an implicit container. So too is
the epilog (misc*).

The first start-tag (or empty element) implicitly signals
the end of the prolog and the start of the root element.
The matching end-tag (if any) signals the end of the
root element and the start of the "epilog".



 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list