Subject: Re: Style vs. transformation From: Paul Prescod <papresco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 09:19:47 -0500 |
Smith, Brooke wrote: > > and so why doesn't XSL allow arbitrary output (flow objects) much like > can be done with Omnimark (of course a difference is that with SGML we > have to output to a DTD that is used to make sure the mark-up is > syntactically correct): > > element document > output "<DIV>%c</DIV>" What you are describing is not a system with "arbitrary flow object output" but a system with a *single* flow object: "unformatted literal string". The answer why XSL doesn't allow this is: XSL is not a report writing system or even a conversion language. It is a stylesheet language and there are not an infinite number of style characteristics that we can expect browsers to support. There is finite list: font changes, generated text, java applets and so forth. If XSL were either a report writing language, a transformation language, or an arbitrary text processing system then it would make sense for it to have an "unformatted literal string" flow object. What would it mean to a browser if you generated "<FOO>%c</FOO>"? 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: Style vs. transformation, Smith, Brooke | Thread | Re: XSL completeness, Michael Kay |
Re: SGML and Forms, Martin Bryan | Date | Re: SGML and Forms, Paul Grosso |
Month |