Subject: Re: Regular expression functions (Was: Re: [xsl] comments on December F&O draft) From: naha@xxxxxxxxxx Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:03:41 -0500 (EST) |
Quoting Jeni Tennison <jeni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: [...] > Is that because constructing *nodes* is expensive or is it the *links* > between the nodes within a tree that makes things problematic? If the > latter, then perhaps documentless nodes are a blessing ;) If the > former, then it's a good argument for nested sequences, so you don't > have to create nodes to provide structure. > > For example, given the problems that I described about processing x,y > coordinates as pairs, there's a strong temptation to create pairs of > coordinates as 'coordinate' elements with 'x' and 'y' attributes, > rather than a simple sequence of integers. If sequences could be > nested, I wouldn't feel that temptation. I expect that in order to allow for nested sequences of <things>, the data model would have to be extended to allow <things> to be first class. As it stands now, how would it know whether when putting togenter (to use lisp notation) the sequences (a b) and (c d) you meant to get (a b c d) or ((a b) (c d)) XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Regular expression functions (W, David Carlisle | Thread | RE: Regular expression functions (W, Marc Portier |
RE: [xsl] passing in a variable to , Michael Kay | Date | Re: [xsl] Not a limerick, Jeni Tennison |
Month |