Subject: Re: [xsl] xsl:for-each vs. xsl:apply-templates From: Dimtre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 06:33:48 +1100 |
Hi Evan, So nice to see you again in xsl-list. > You could make some analogies with OOP polymorphism, in that apply-templates > is a polymorphic function. Modes could be compared with method names, and > match patterns could be compared (loosely) with subtyping for dynamic > function resolution. In fact, if you look at the XML source document as > "code" rather than just "data", then you end up with a sort of twice-removed > function resolution. A given element in the source may result in executing > some code in some template rule(s) somewhere. I've found that this > twice-removed nature allows me to express software intentions quite clearly > in XML without being bothered at all by implementation details. You didn't mention here XML (or any other) schema -- how does a schema language fit in this picture? It seems to me that we need a mechanism to express not only a given data type as data, but also to describe (formally, not in plain English) the set of all possible operations on that data type. I couldn't find such a concept in XML Schema, or was I wrong? > > I suspect that my next step will be to finally wrap my brain around your > work on XSLT as a functional language. I seem to be heading in that > direction. Wonderful! Cheers, Dimitre.
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] xsl:for-each vs. xsl:appl, Evan Lenz | Thread | RE: [xsl] xsl:for-each vs. xsl:appl, Andrew Welch |
Re: [xsl] document(), Geert Josten | Date | RE: [xsl] xsl and toc.hhc (was xml , Allin Cottrell |
Month |