RE: Style vs. transformation

Subject: RE: Style vs. transformation
From: David Megginson <ak117@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 11:02:54 -0500
Rob McDougall writes:

 > So now that I concede that there's only a requirement for one
 > language, my next question is "Is that language XSL?".  To put
 > things another way, "Can I use XSL as a general XML->XML
 > transformation language?".

It's certainly an interesting idea.  Here's one possible syntax for a
rule that would transform <para>...</para> to <P x="y">...</P>:

    <target-element type="para"/>
    <xml-element type="P">
	<xml-attribute name="x" value="y"/>

James already did something like this with Jade.  From an
implementation perspective, this is an easy one (just define a set of
XML flow object classes); from a standards perspective, it may not be:
it depends on the boundaries that the XSL group has accepted for their

All the best,


David Megginson                 ak117@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Microstar Software Ltd.         dmeggins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread