Subject: RE: Style vs. transformation From: Rob McDougall <RMcDouga@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 17:22:00 -0500 |
Wait a sec here. XSL is an XML "meta-tool". It works on any XML dialect. Wouldn't you foresee other tools that also work on any XML dialect? Does each of these tools also need to implement its own transformation capability? I would hope not. By separating out the transformation into a separate item, every meta tool doesn't have to re-implement the same set of transformation functions. This seems the most logical approach IMHO. You say that "style language is already essentially a transformation". I disagree. There are two separate mechanisms going on here. The first mechanism transforms the tree structure of the incoming document to something that matches the desired output. The second mechanism attaches style-related semantics to the newly structured tree. The first mechanism is one that would prove generally useful to a large variety of tools that operate on XML. The second is only useful in the context it's intended for (creating output). IMO, the only reason the latter looks like a transformation is because of the mechanism the creators of XSL chose to use in assigning semantics to the transformed tree. They chose to do so by using fixed tag names that represent flow objects. If they had chosen to use a declarative mapping syntax (e.g. something like "tag Author = flowobject paragraph") we wouldn't be having this conversation. Rob >-----Original Message----- >From: Paul Prescod [SMTP:papresco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] >Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 1998 4:50 PM >To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: Re: Style vs. transformation > >Richard Light wrote: >> > >[snip] > >> If we do have to invent something, then >> I am simply suggesting that we look to DSSSL-transform for ideas rather >> than starting from scratch. > >I think that Jade's transformation back-end is a more appropriate guide. >That is essentially what you suggested when you spoke of running "XSL >twice". But I still don't think that we should require a separate level >of transformation when the style language is already essentially a >transformation. > > [snip] > >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: Style vs. transformation, Paul Prescod | Thread | Re: Style vs. transformation, Paul Prescod |
Re: Style vs. transformation, Paul Prescod | Date | RE: Style vs. transformation, G. Ken Holman |
Month |