Subject: RE: [xsl] Normalize / Simplify HTML-Tables with row-span / col-span From: "Michael Kay" <mhk@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:49:07 -0000 |
> > ...are you saying keep RTF's (and the corresponding > explicit node-set > > conversion) in 2.0 for performance reasons? > > node-set should be kept in XSLT for reasons which are much > more serious than performance. I can see reasons why one can > want to drop it; however, the experience with XSLT 1.0 shows > that node-set is a dangerous area. Having it hidden behind > the scenes just makes implementation bugs harder to discover > and computational complexity issue (for which I will > eventually be linched on this list) much more complicated. > > Would you live with the fact that an algorithm which was > linear in XSLT 1.0 would be quadratic in XSLT 2.0? > > Do you see any advantage in turning simple and obvious > operation at the level of XSLT ( (exsl|xt):node-set ) into > something optimization-based? > I'm sorry, I don't understand the assumptions behind this line of reasoning. To my mind, the RTF in 1.0 was a ghastly mess, with it's rules that say "you can use it anywhere that a string can be used, it then behaves like a document node converted to a string, but you can't use it anywhere you can use a document node". Enforcing these restrictions was a nightmare and led to really buggy and inefficient code which I was very happy to throw away. Where exactly do you see the merits of RTFs? Michael Kay XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] Normalize / Simplify HTML, David Tolpin | Thread | RE: [xsl] Normalize / Simplify HTML, David Tolpin |
RE: [xsl] versioning, Michael Kay | Date | RE: [xsl] Loading XSL files from st, Michael Kay |
Month |