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>: <rule> <target-element type="para"/> <xml-element type="P"> <xml-attribute-list> <xml-attribute name="x" value="y"/> </xml-attribute-list> <children/> </xml-element> </rule> 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 work. All the best, David -- David Megginson ak117@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Microstar Software Ltd. dmeggins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/dmeggins/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: Style vs. transformation, Rob McDougall | Thread | Re: Style vs. transformation, Paul Prescod |
RE: Style vs. transformation, Rob McDougall | Date | Re: Style vs. Transformation, Jacques Deseyne |
Month |