Subject: RE: More XSL Discussion From: Matti Katajamaki <matti@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 18:05:57 -0800 |
In this discussion I'm more interested of the expression power than an exactly proper syntax at this point. XSL already has constructs that always match, like <target-element/>. So I don't see anything bad in pattern matching with "zero or more" and "zero or one" constructs. Perhaps more close to XML syntax would be to add a new qualifier "count", for example: <element type="list"> <element type="item" count=CountDef> <target-element ....> </element> </element> where CountDef can be: - "any" - positive integer - constant - function Matti -----Original Message----- From: Paul Prescod [SMTP:papresco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 1998 4:11 PM To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: More XSL Discussion Matti Katajamaki wrote: > > Why not generalize the idea to express the number of target elements using BNF > ?, + and * operators, for example: > > <rule> > <target-element type="LIST"/> > <target-element type="ITEM"+/> > ... action part > </rule> The ? and * operators match lambda, so this rule would *always* be triggered in LISTs. Also, the syntax is not valid XML anymore. Paul Prescod - http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco [Woody Allen on Hollywood in "Annie Hall"] Annie: "It's so clean down here." Woody: "That's because they don't throw their garbage away. They make it into television shows." XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: More XSL Discussion, Norman Walsh | Thread | Re: More XSL Discussion, Paul Prescod |
Re: More XSL Discussion, Paul Prescod | Date | Re: More XSL Discussion, Sean Mc Grath |
Month |