Subject: Re: More XSL Discussion From: Paul Prescod <papresco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 16:40:11 -0500 |
Michael Kay wrote: > > You're right, it doesn't make sense to create half an HTML element. It does > make sense, however, to generate one "output" HTML element as a result of > encountering a fairly complex input XML pattern. This is a hard problem, but matching larger patterns may well be the best way to attack this. Still, one must weigh the cost of complicating the language with a new construct vs. using ad hoc coding tricks in the rare case that it comes up. The convention I would usually use is Check if node is first in row if so, make the wrapper, and process it's matching siblings in a special mode else don't do anything <special-mode> put the real behaviour for the nodes here </special-mode> This is ugly, but not too painful. The alternative is a whole new language construct for multi-element pattern matching. I could be wrong, but I think that this is the kind of problem that the "transformation part" of DSSSL (which is not really on the table for web implementation) is supposed to be really good at -- pattern matching to augment structure. Perhaps people like James and Henry who are knowledgable about both will find a reasonable way to combine them. Paul Prescod - http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco [Woody Allen on Hollywood in "Annie Hall"] Annie: "It's so clean down here." Woody: "That's because they don't throw their garbage away. They make it into television shows." XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: More XSL Discussion, Michael Kay | Thread | Re: More XSL Discussion, Brad McCormick, Ed.D |
RE: More XSL Discussion, Jonathan Marsh | Date | Question: XSL & Dynamic Changes Dur, L. John Junod |
Month |