Re: Fw: A weaker XSL?

Subject: Re: Fw: A weaker XSL?
From: Paul Prescod <paul@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 06:16:14 -0600
You can be confident that the "buffers" approach was explicitly rejected.
It is the mechanism used in the most popular transformation tool in the
SGML world, "omnimark." I think of tree navigation based languages as a
reaction *against* that.

Oren Ben-Kiki wrote:
> I think this would allow doing anything XSL allows in a single SAX pass. 

How do you express "if my parent's parent's last sibling's 'security'
attribute is 'top secret' then generate a digital-signature element" or
more generally "if there exists an element with the following
 Paul Prescod  - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself

"Remember, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did,
but she did it backwards and in high heels."
                                               --Faith Whittlesey

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread