Subject: Re: [xsl] following-sibling and xsl:sort From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 11:27:31 +1000 |
> > > Therefore, any problem, which has solution using the xxx:node-set() > > > extension function should have a solution without using it. > > > > I tend to disagree with that statement. > > Me too. Turing completeness is not the same as closure over the data model. > To take an obvious example, there is no way of creating a result tree that > contains an unparsed entity, even though the data model allows unparsed > entities to exist. > > Closer to the hypothesis in question, I don't believe it is possible in XSLT > 1.0 without the xx:node-set() extension to create a result tree containing a > namespace that is declared in neither the source document nor the > stylesheet, if the result tree contains no element or attribute whose name > is in that namespace. Yes, Turing-completenes cannot help in the case when an object in the data model simply can't be created by a transformation without additional input (such as a copy of the object itself). Are there such cases still for XSLT2? Cheers, Dimitre Novatchev.
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] following-sibling and xsl, Dimitre Novatchev | Thread | Re: [xsl] following-sibling and xsl, David Carlisle |
[xsl] Uses for XSL (was Re: [xsl] f, Jay Bryant | Date | [xsl] Newbie question on Recusrion , Marco Mastrocinque |
Month |