Subject: RE: XSL as a better XPointer was RE: The Cathedral and the Bizarre (was: do you use pi's?) From: Dieter Maurer <dieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 08:50:27 +0000 (/etc/localtime) |
Jonathan Borden writes: > Chris Lilley wrote > > Ok, so now make it do the span (verse 12 *and* verse 13) > > "//chapter[21]/v[12 $to$ 13]" > > >and for an > > encore, make it select "better Xpointer (less weight" in > > > > <foo>XSL patterns are a better XPointer <reason>(less weight more > > filling...)</reason></foo> > > > > foo/text()/region("better Xpointer (less weight") > > or > > foo/text()/region(21,50) Obviously, Chris and Jonathan speak about *TWO* different XSL versions. While Chris seems to have the current W3C XSL working draft of Dec 16, 1998 in mind, Jonathan speaks about a different XSL, maybe the XSL currently implemented in IE5. I, personally, hope that the final standardized version of XSL will support many XPointer features, especially ranges (spans). I hope, however, it will not use the syntax shown above. I dislike e.g. the '$' around the 'to', because it is different from the 'and' and 'or' operators. 'to' should become an operator (named 'to' not '$to$'). I am not sure, whether I like the indexing in the form '[no]'. This is very intuitive for programmers, but in XSL '[...]' means filtering. Although more cumbersome, it probably would prefer a function '[index(no)]', maybe in two variants ('index-of-type', 'index-of-any'). I would then also prefer a function 'between' over an operator 'to'. - Dieter XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: XSL as a better XPointer was RE, Jonathan Borden | Thread | hiding some of the source, Matthew MacKenzie |
RE: XSL as a better XPointer was RE, Jonathan Borden | Date | Re: Xlink, Simon St.Laurent |
Month |