Subject: RE: Grand Unification Theory (XSL/XPointer) From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:59:47 -0400 |
Hi, Still continuing to think on XPointer and XSL relationship. Here is a concrete example of two expressions with the same meaning that should in the best world be re-united. Document <doc> <element1> <element2>element1 data</element2> <element2>element1 data</element2> </element1> </doc> XPointer: descendant(all,element2) XSL: "/element2" Both terms means that we obtain all element2 contained in the XML document. The first notation is procedural (or looks procedural), the second is more functional. The descendant relationship is implicit in the notation where each context is delimited by a "/" like found in hierarchical file systems. Two world, same meaning, two kingdoms, two languages :-) I spent some time reading the proposals and postings on XQL from the last workshop on Queries. If we look at what XPointer, XSL and XQL try to resolve is "get me this or these objects based on this or these criteria". All have to deal with class based queries and instance based queries. We should be able to leverage our knowledge from one world to the other. In fact, all these worlds should be set or subset of the same world. But today, we have three different worlds and ways of saying things. regards Didier PH Martin mailto:martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.netfolder.com XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: Grand Unification Theory (XSL/X, Didier PH Martin | Thread | RE: Grand Unification Theory (XSL/X, Guy_Murphy |
RE: Grand Unification Theory (XSL/X, Didier PH Martin | Date | About xsl:scripts, Didier PH Martin |
Month |