Subject: RE: New/old pattern syntax, why can't we have both ? From: "James K. Tauber" <jtauber@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 00:03:04 +0800 |
> Is Xpointer intended to solve the problem of patterns? It > seems to me that patterns in XSL are much more complex than XPointers. If > XPointers could be used then I would very much agree with using them instead > of coming up with another syntax. XPointers can't really be used for XSL and XSL patterns can't really be used for XLink addressessing --- AS THEY CURRENTLY STAND. I'm interested in exploring the possibility of expanding both to form a superset tree addressing language. What might make this difficult is that: 1. XSL patterns are generally interested in a class of nodes (eg "all the elements of type 'emph'") whereas XPointers are generally interested in a specific node. 2. The processing models are likely quite different. XPointers are used to find nodes in a document whereas with XSL, you start with a node and try to find the pattern that matches with the greatest specificity. > If Xpointer is sufficient then much of this goes away because we will > probably have an Xpointer parser available already (at least when XPointers > become widely used). If they are not sufficient, then we should use base XML > syntax. I don't think XPointers are sufficient but I don't think it would take much to make them so. James -- James Tauber / jtauber@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.jtauber.com/ Lecturer and Associate Researcher Electronic Commerce Network ( http://www.xmlinfo.com/ Curtin Business School ( http://www.xmlsoftware.com/ Perth, Western Australia ( http://www.schema.net/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: New/old pattern syntax, why can, Mark_Overton | Thread | CSS selectors for pattern syntax. W, Ray Cromwell |
Re: RE: New/old pattern syntax, why, dvunkannon | Date | matching the namespace, dvunkannon |
Month |