Subject: RE: alternatives to XSL (was RE: Microsoft extensions) From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 11:15:56 -0500 |
Hi James, Thanks for the explanation. I learned more about Omnimark. With Omnimark Can you do processing on the tree? I mean here: a) enumerate an element's collection b) process and replace an element in the tree and all its children with a new one (and therefore get a new element sub structure) c) Do procedural processing on the tree (I mean here: not with a pattern match mechanism but from a DOM point of view or something similar. Briefly, does it support the "composite" pattern (Gamma & al.), a kind of DOM ? Didier PH Martin mailto:martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.netfolder.com > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of James Robertson > Sent: Thursday, November 12, 1998 2:17 AM > To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: alternatives to XSL (was RE: Microsoft extensions) > > > At 15:31 12/11/1998 , you wrote: > | Didier PH Martin wrote: > | > > | > Hi Paul > | > > | > you said: > | > I don't think of Omnimark as high-level. I think of it as ultra > low-level. > | > It is focused on the nuts and bolts of the text. > | > > | > Can you briefly describe what you mean by "low level and > focused on the > | > text". Is it lower level than XSL and if yes why. We can > learn from your > | > explanations. > | > | Omnimark is about string processing. It is very good at > matching strings > | that are SGML tags and so forth, but the basic model is the same as > | working through an RTF string or a comma delimited file string. When I > | work with XML, I want to think of it as just a serialization > for a *tree*. > | It's the tree that I want to work with in my code. Omnimark > is low-level > | in that it works with the string and not the abstraction it > represents. > > This is not actually true. > > Yes, Omnimark has a lot of "regular-expression"-type string handling. > > It's big strength is that it _also_ has an integrated, but separate, > DTD-based system. > > In the string handling side of things you say: > > FIND <pattern> > WHEN <something> IS TRUE > > <do something> > > However, in the SGML/XML side, you say: > > ELEMENT Foo > > OUTPUT Bar > > ELEMENT Para > WHEN PARENT IS Something > > <do something> > > So, yes, Omnimark does allow you to consider an XML document > as a tree. And the advantage of something like Omnimark (versus > XSL) is that it's a full programming language. This makes it > a lot more expressive and powerful. > > As ever, I am speaking for myself, not as a spokesperson > for Omnimark Technologies. > > Cheers, > > J > > ------------------------- > James Robertson > Step Two Designs Pty Ltd > SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy > http://www.steptwo.com.au/ > jamesr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > "Beyond the Idea" > ACN 081 019 623 > > > 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: alternatives to XSL (was RE: Mi, Paul Prescod | Thread | RE: alternatives to XSL (was RE: Mi, Didier PH Martin |
RE: Microsoft extensions to XSL, Didier PH Martin | Date | Warning: possible XSL-List disrupti, XSL-List Owner |
Month |