RE: lambda was RE: W3C-transformation language petition

["Jonathan Borden" <jborden@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Didier PH Martin wrote:

<Reply>
You may end up with something even more un-lisible than DSSSL. After all, a
dsssl document is also a SGML document where the begin tag delimiter is "("
and the end tag delimiter is ")". The problem is not so much with dsssl
interpreters but with tools to help not get lost with the "()".

To map all lisp construct with XML type markups could be a lot less readable
and may end up with complicated structure. In the end people would go back
to dsssl saying that xsl is too complicated :-)
</Reply>

	This is the point, in the same fashion that "(" delimited text files denote
LISP/Scheme/DSSSL programs, and these are parsed into an internal structure
(e.g. a list), "<" delimit XML files.

	The intention is not to replace "(" with "<", rather introduce some of the
proven declarative constructs (which operate on lists in LISP) into XSL
which operates on trees. Specifically, I am interested in the transformation
part, not the formatting part.

	In my initial foray into XSL programming, I quickly run into a wall. The
solution is to fall back into algorithmic solutions in Javascript and/or
Java. What I propose is that constructs which have proven their metal in the
LISP world, such as eval, lambda, etc. applied to XSL would extend the range
of easily describable transformations (by this model *every* computer
program can be represented as a transformation).

	Alternatively what is the purpose of XSL, we have DSSSL for complex styling
and CSS for simple styling? If the only problem with DSSSL is the "()" then
fine, bag these and use "<>". If that is the intention of XSL, then give us
something to work with.

Jonathan Borden
http://jabr.ne.mediaone.net






 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list