Subject: Re: Grand Unification Theory From: Paul Prescod <paul@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 10:54:05 -0500 |
Lars Marius Garshol wrote: > > * Duane Nickull > | > | I am for unification of XSL and XPointer. > > I'm not sure if this is such a good idea. I used to support this idea, > too, but after I've seen the uses that XSL patterns are being put to > I'm not so sure any more. I see an XPointer as an XSL pattern that is restricted to a contiguous range of nodes. So XPointer would be a subset of XSL. The important question is whether the syntax could be restricted so that the XPointer parser could know at "compile time" that only a character or a range matches. For instance a/b would be illegal but a[1]/b[2] would be legal (where a[x] had an "indexing" meaning). (it might be a smart move to reserve square brackets for indexing and use something else like curly brackets for other qualifiers) -- Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco By lumping computers and televisions together, as if they exerted a single malign influence, pessimists have tried to argue that the electronic revolution spells the end of the sort of literate culture that began with Gutenberg?s press. On several counts, that now seems the reverse of the truth. http://www.economist.com/editorial/freeforall/19-12-98/index_xm0015.html XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: Grand Unification Theory, Didier PH Martin | Thread | Re: Grand Unification Theory, Chris Lilley |
Python & XML, Paul Prescod | Date | Unification and syntax, Paul Prescod |
Month |