RE: 2.6 patterns: let's try variations on the XML syntax

Subject: RE: 2.6 patterns: let's try variations on the XML syntax
From: "Pawson, David" <DPawson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 07:48:15 +0100
Scott Lawton wrote:

> 	XSL should be expressed in XML syntax.
> 	XSL stylesheets should be human-readable and reasonably clear.
> 	Terseness in XSL markup is of minimal importance.
The examples meet those criteria IMHO.
Not terse, but very familiar. And readable.

> <xsl:template>
> 	<xsl:match>
> 		<para></para>
> 	</xsl:match>
> 	<xsl:action>
> 		<fo:block font-size="10pt" space-before="12pt">
> 			<xsl:process-children/>
> 		</fo:block>
> 	</xsl:action>
> </xsl:template>
> I'm not sure if the <xsl:action> tags are a good idea; I was just striving
> for balance.
> The "//" construct could be something like:
> 	<xsl:match>
> 		<para>
> 			<XSL:any>
> 				<changed></changed>
> 			</XSL:any>
> 		</para>
> 	</xsl:match>
> More complex patterns are of course more complex (and my suggestions are
> very tentative here).  As shown in the original proposal, there needs to
> be
> a way to distinguish between the tag that is the target ("author" in this
> case) and one or more tags that are just part of the test (the "book"
> contains at least one "excerpt"); I decided that the test will be an xsl
> tag not a literal tag:
> 	<xsl:match>
> 		<book>
> 			<xsl:test="at-least-one" tag="excerpt"/>
> 			<author xsl:test="contains"
> xsl:attribute="degree"></author>
> 		</book>
> 	</xsl:match>
That is the only concern, the actual target, rather than the element 'path' 
on the way to the target, need to be easily distinguished.
The example above does indicate that. Target is the most indented?

Nice one Scott. I'd certainly prefer it to the 'new' syntax

For the cognoscenti, what is the 'official' way to proffer suggestions.
I know James and Henry are listening here, but how should Scott
forward such to the powers that be?

Regards, DaveP

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread