Subject: Re: [xsl] Quasi-Literals and XML From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 13:35:29 GMT |
> I thought the XSL gurus back > then pretty much agreed that XSL was Turing-complete? 'tis so. In XSLT 1.0 you need to use string handling to implement the tape, which is a bit of a pain, but given foo:node-set() or xslt 1.1 implicit rtf-node set conversion you can use node lists which makes it a lot more reasonable. But being turing complete doesn't really say much, that was turing's point that essentially any type of machine/programming language would end up being able to evaluate the same set of functions. Of course the comment that you quote > "XSL is a specialized language built specifically for transforming XML, into > XML or other notations, but not for transforming other notations into XML. is perfectly valid, and is explictly stated by the XSLT spec. So I don't think that is necessarily a "criticism" of xsl, just a statement of fact. Being turing complete, one could write a regexep string matcher in XSLT, if you had a spare month or two to write it, and your users had a similar amount of time to run it..... David XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] Quasi-Literals and XML, Linda van den Brink | Thread | RE: [xsl] Quasi-Literals and XML, Linda van den Brink |
[xsl] previous post should be: merg, Pollington, Lee (ELS | Date | [xsl] justified text in xsl-fo, Sven Kohl |
Month |