Subject: Re: CSS for transformation From: "Philippe Le Hégaret" <Philippe.Le_Hegaret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 11:45:29 +0200 |
Paul Prescod wrote: > I didn't claim it was a big problem. I didn't claim that the CSS model > could never have new functionality added. The truth is that the XSL model > will be largely based on the CSS model. It will essentially be the > formatting part of CSS3. > > > And if people wants an X, it's very easy to create the XCSS. > > Sure, but why? Because I don't want to implement two differents style models in my application, one for CSS and one for XSL. I don't like the word "largely" or the word "essentially". > > XSL wants to poorly transform XML documents into another > > XML document and it works (not well, but it works). > > I've used more than a dozen transformation languages, and XSL is the most > well thought-out of the bunch. It is an *excellent* transformation > language, and it works beautifully. No, for me it's not. I don't want to support an undocumented post processor in my XSL. I don't want to support a specific XSL engine just because this is the only one post processor for my output format. > > XSL can't transform an XML document into an unknown format. > > Neither can CSS. Anyhow, I call a transformation into a completely > different format a "conversion" and I think that it is the job of a > different piece of software. CSS is not for conversion, only for the style. And "a different piece of software" is too general for me. > > I know, you > > could add a namespace and do a post-processor, but is it the good solution ? > > Yes. Not agree with this. It's an another way to say : "You can't do the conversion with XSL, so write a program for this.". XSL can't define a namespace for all existing format. > > And, if it's not the goal of XSL, should we work on an another solution ? > > Only if you can point out something concrete that is wrong with the > current solution. see above. > Using xsl:if and xsl:for-each is not programming, and XSL is not a > programming language. Conditionals and iteration are not enough to make > something into a programming language. You can program a lot of things with only an if, a for and a when. Look this stupid example : <xsl:template match="namelist/name"> <xsl:process-children/> <xsl:if test=".[not-last-of-type()]"> <xsl:choose> <xsl:when test='ancestor(orderedlist/orderedlist)'> <xsl:number format="i"/> </xsl:when> <xsl:when test='ancestor(orderedlist)'> <xsl:number format="a"/> </xsl:when> <xsl:otherwise> <xsl:number format="1"/> <xsl:for-each select="item"> <xsl:process-children/> </xsl:for-each> </xsl:otherwise> </xsl:choose> </xsl:if> </xsl:template> > You're looking for a different solution than XSL because XSL doesn't do > everything you want *yet* (though it is intended to eventually?). What > makes you think that your different solution would be available before XSL > was completed? Nothing. But I don't think for the moment that XSL will be the solution. It's just a way to find it. Philippe. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: CSS for transformation, Paul Prescod | Thread | Re: CSS for transformation, Paul Prescod |
Advice needed on placement of datat, Amit Rekhi | Date | Re: Advice needed on placement of d, Martin Bryan |
Month |