Subject: Re: XSL Theory From: Steve Schafer <pandeng@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 14:07:07 -0600 |
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 14:22:53 -0500, you wrote: >The restrictions on no side effects and the one way (input to output >transform) nature of XSL should make this a much easier problem than the >general problem of proving the correctness of computer programs. Sure, but "much easier" than "completely intractable" doesn't necessarily mean "easy." :) I can easily produce an example XSLT transformation that will be correct as long as Goldbach's Conjecture is true, but will fail if it is false. Obviously, it would be a contrived example, but the fact that it exists demonstrates that you can't have any generalized confidence in XSLT. -Steve Schafer XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: XSL Theory, Jon Smirl | Thread | Re: XSL Theory, Jon Smirl |
Re: XSL Theory, Steve Schafer | Date | Re: XSL Theory, Rick Geimer |
Month |