Re: [xsl] XMLPipe model: should we change the name?
Subject: Re: [xsl] XMLPipe model: should we change the name?|
From: Michael Pediaditakis <mp49@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 18:09:33 +0000
And since we are talking about it, some additional thoughts:
My point of view is that a traditional pipeline is not sufficient.
I think that a static pipeline with a number of processing steps is not
adequate for some cases. The processing order should probably depend on
the document structure as well.
E.g. think of a document
E.g. if we have a tranformation that handled an <import> element (with
functionality similar to XML Inclusions) and we have other tranformations
that might generate additional <import> elements. In that case a simple
static pipeline is not sufficient.
where "url1" is an XML document with the following information
and if there is a different transformation that handles the <someData> tags
which also generates more import statements (lets say the the first
tag will be transformed to an <import ref="url2"/>.
If we use the following (which is the reasonable way to do it, methinks)
the final result will be something in terms of:
which is not what we want..
If we have the data handler first, the result will still not be fully
(the same as before actually):
However, if the pipeline was autmatically constructed according to the
the import transformation could be applied sufficient times to get rid
of all the "import" elements.
I think that the only problem with such an approach is that it is
extremely slow, since the whole
document structure has to be investigated in order to construct the
proper tranformation pipeline.
Mike (sharing his thoughts, which might be quite crap as well :)
P.S. Sorry for the crapy XML in this post!
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list