Subject: Re: DTD for customizable stylesheets From: James Clark <jjc@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat Mar 29 03:38:44 1997 EST |
At 23:54 28/03/97 -0500, Paul Prescod wrote: >Why can't element construction rules be at least as powerful as >match-element? and process-matching-children? Guess: implementation >simplicity. So that when an element matches two different element construction rules, it's always obvious which is the more specific. >Why is there no "or" or "not" for match-element? There is a very >coarse-grained "or" where you can duplicate an entire pattern, but not >within patterns. Guess: implementation simplicity. To keep the syntax for patterns really simple for the user. >Why is there no (process-matching-descendants)? Sure, it is easy to >write. But still -- so is (process-children). Use of process-matching-descendants is prone to error: if you do (process-matching-descendants 'div) and a div element has a child div element, and the rule for the div element doesn't do anything special, then the child div element will get processed twice. process-matching-descendants doesn't seem to me to provide anything that you can't do better with modes and process-children. James
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
DTD for customizable stylesheets, Norbert Mikula | Thread | Orthoganlity Questions, Paul Prescod |
Re: Orthoganlity Questions, James Clark | Date | Re: Orthoganlity Questions, Paul Prescod |
Month |