Re: FW: XSL with scripting

[Tyler Baker <tyler@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

\"Pasqualino \\\"Titto\\\" Assini\" wrote:

> Keith Visco wrote:
>
> > Paul,
> >
> > Actually I have my own XSLProcessor that does accept a DOM Document for
> > the source...
> >
> > --Keith
> >
>
> Koala also takes a DOM tree as input.
>
> Unluckily Clark's XT doesn't (or at least it didn't last time I checked).

I guess you will have to ask him why, but my best guess is that namespaces
really invalidates use of the DOM since the latest DOM spec is not namespace
aware and building a DOM tree using namespaces is a painful job.  No one I
know of on this planet is using namespaces, plans on using namespaces, or
even likes namespaces as it is currently defined.  The only things I know of
that have any use of namespaces is XSL and a few other W3C drafts based on
XML.  Yes you can support namespaces with the DOM, but it is a hack to
implement and cannot be dealt with efficiently with the standard DOM.

Namespace defaulting is ugly, hard to understand at the end user level, and
not easy to handle.  I really wish that the current namespaces proposal would
just die a fast quick death as it is the single biggest geek factor add on to
XML that makes it difficult for mere mortals to work with.  The old
namespaces proposal maybe was not as sexy as the current proposal, but at
least it was easy to implement and easy to use.

In XSL, the current namespaces proposal also forces XSL Processors to not
validate source documents (or DOM trees) which means you might as well rip
the entire validating part of XML out of the spec.  Some might argue that
eliminating validation would be a good thing, but certainly not for the
reason to support namespaces.

Tyler


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list