Subject: Re: [xsl] Quasi-Literals and XML From: "Michael Beddow" <mbnospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 19:02:29 -0000 |
On Thursday, February 01, 2001 4:42 AM James Robertson wrote: > At 01:13 1/02/2001, Linda van den Brink wrote: > > >My point is that in the first place the statement that XSL is not > >Turing-complete is debatable, in the second place I'm not convinced that XSL > >is severely restricted in the possible transformations, and in the third > >place I wonder whether there is a causal relationship between lack of > >turing-completeness of XSL and restrictions in possible transformations. > > Without regular exprssions (for example), XSLT cannot be > used for transformations from "x" to XML, where "x" is > some arbitrary source file. Well, I never thought XLST was to do with turning non-XML into XML. I suppose that will be necessary for a while till the world sees the light, but while we're waiting, there are other tools for that job > > You are also limited in how much you can (easily) > manipulate the content of XML as part of the > transformation. Aha, this may really where the differences come to light. I suppose it depends on the definition of "manipulate", but as I understood it so far, XSLT isn't for manipulating the *content* of XML but transforming its *structure*. OK, that may involve selection or omission or concatenation or re-ordering of content, but anything beyond that is surely the realm of the producers of the XML itself, again using appropriate tools for that different job? Michael ------------------------------------------ Michael Beddow http://www.mbeddow.net/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] merging two documents - o, Jeni Tennison | Thread | Re: [xsl] Quasi-Literals and XML, David Carlisle |
Re: [xsl] hyperlinks, Michael Beddow | Date | Re: [xsl] hyperlinks, David Carlisle |
Month |