Subject: [xsl] schema-1 (was something about keys, a long while ago) From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 21:17:09 +0100 |
> For us, just being able to code a simple "typed" match without jumping > through any syntactical hoops would certainly make the XSL easier to > understand and write. It's no fun at all if people take the opposite side of a debate from me and then make such plausible sounding arguments that there's a chance they might even be right... However I'm still not toally convinced. It seems to me relatively rare to have lots of different element names (would have been called eleemnt types in an earlier era) which all have the same schema type and all need to be processed in the same way. If they have the same internal structure and the same processing one wonders what's gained by calling them different names. Given that you do have lost of xxx-date element names you have to _somewhere_ mapo them all to date. You say you don't want a long list in a template match (or equivalenty one assumes a lot of individual templates each calling a named "date" template) but the information has to be somewhere, for example in a list of type assignments in the schema, this doesn't seem so much easier to maintain. David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] keys and idrefs - XSLT2 r, Hunsberger, Peter | Thread | Re: [xsl] schema-1 (was something a, Eric van der Vlist |
RE: [xsl] Need some help urgently, Wendell Piez | Date | RE: [xsl] schema-1 (was something a, Hunsberger, Peter |
Month |