Subject: Re: XSL-T, XTL.... or XQL? From: Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 10:29:36 +0000 |
Hi Oren. When you say XSL is a subset of XQL I assume you are neatly snipping away the XSL FOs... they aren't gone quite yet... so XSL is not a subset of XQL. But I'll play along as I know the valid point you where making :) You do however raise an interesting issue though.... do we want to lock XSL into the relationship you describe... being a subset of XQL? Cheers Guy. xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 03/07/99 06:55:48 PM To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cc: (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID) Subject: XSL-T, XTL.... or XQL? Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >Hi. > >Actually I didn't expect anybody to bite the bait but hey, it was worth a >try :) > >As for your hypothetical... quite appropriate for a Friday afternoon I >think. > >When comparing an XQL angle to an XSL one, it might be interesting to look >at the position paper from the XSL WG on XQL... > >While there are many similarities between the two efforts the focus between >the two is markedly different. Actually it seems as though XSL is a proper subset of XQL. >You see we have a description of transformation within XSL but for XQL >people are looking to produce a different description based upon the >existing XSL one, rather than simply use the XSL one. Given XSL < XQL, it is obvious one would need to do that. >So in the scenario >you paint it's quite reasonable to run the other way and if XQL pre-existed >build an XSL transformative descriptiton based on the existing XQL one. Given XSL < XQL, it doesn't follow that we'd bother to define the XSL subset as a separate language. >You say ..."Now, it may be just me, but I don't feel that the second >alternative would >have been even seriously considered, never mind actually being accepted as >the dominant solution."... but that is exactly what is being considered, >just the other way around. Again, a necessity given XSL < XQL, redundant the other way around. >You see producing a language standard isn't just a software engineering >exercise involving factoring of isolated parts, it's is more akin to >product development or which software engineering is but one part. In >delivering a product ones objective is to best meet the specified >requirements. Getting the requirements right is also important :-) It is also important not to give the user two 80% compatible solutions, so that only by using them together he can get what he needs. Have fun, Oren Ben-Kiki. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
XSL Problem, Wendy Cameron | Thread | xsl tutorials, Carmi |
RE: Fw: Fw: W3C-transformation lang, Guy_Murphy | Date | Re: W3C-transformation language pet, Guy_Murphy |
Month |