RE: No side effects holy cow. ( Re: process order (still...) )

Subject: RE: No side effects holy cow. ( Re: process order (still...) )
From: Khun Yee Fung <KFung@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 18:41:16 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Tchistopolskii [mailto:paul@xxxxxxx]

>I don't understand. 

>If you are saying XML-ish notation is appropriate thing here, that means 
>XPath should be XML-ish as well ( for the reasons why the rest of XSLT 
>have been made XML-ish).

I don't mind verbosity. I like consistency. So I don't mind that XSLT
documents are XML documents. I want to be able to transform XSLT documents
as well. Meta XSLT templates are useful to provide additional flexibility. I
hope I could do the same with XPath. Not that I have an example why I need

I guess I don't have a strong conviction either way. I will use whatever is
available for me.

> PS. I'm happy with XPath in it's current form.

As a path notation, it is as good as it goes, I guess.

I am just looking for a tree pattern matching notation. A notation that
allows you to match nodes and subtrees, not just paths in the tree. Granted
I can specify all tree patterns in XPath, I just want a more natural way.

>XSLT could be also used for many-many other things. But attempts 
>to use it for those 'many-many' things usualy show that XSLT is not 
>as good for those problem domains as it is for it's original problem 

I guess we should not expect XSLT to be good for something it was not
designed for.

>I could start providing a long explanations and examples of particular 
>problems I encountered before I got to this point, but I think anyone 
>who tried to utilize XSLT for rendering, for example, financial reports
>into plain text -  already knows what I know.  

I have an example using XSLT to generate a PDF file. It was a good exercise
for me. But perhaps generating TeX documents is more reasonable (Of course
it has been done, somebody on this mailing list can tell you that.).

Khun Yee

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread