Subject: Re: Fw: A weaker XSL? From: Paul Prescod <paul@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 06:16:14 -0600 |
You can be confident that the "buffers" approach was explicitly rejected. It is the mechanism used in the most popular transformation tool in the SGML world, "omnimark." I think of tree navigation based languages as a reaction *against* that. Oren Ben-Kiki wrote: > > I think this would allow doing anything XSL allows in a single SAX pass. How do you express "if my parent's parent's last sibling's 'security' attribute is 'top secret' then generate a digital-signature element" or more generally "if there exists an element with the following characteristics" -- Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco "Remember, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did, but she did it backwards and in high heels." --Faith Whittlesey XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Fw: A weaker XSL?, Oren Ben-Kiki | Thread | Fw: Fw: A weaker XSL?, Oren Ben-Kiki |
Splitting XSL, Paul Prescod | Date | Re: Splitting XSL, Don Park |
Month |