RE: How do you this XML document to this other one (DTD to DTD)

Subject: RE: How do you this XML document to this other one (DTD to DTD)
From: Francois_Deza@xxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 17:09:14 +0100

Ed,

i think i understood your point.
What i miss examples of data reformatting  where the target DTD is not
html.

Francois





Ed Simon <ed.simon@xxxxxxxxxxx> on 04/29/99 01:27:56 PM

Please respond to xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To:   "'xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc:    (bcc: Francois Deza/AMS/AMSINC)
Subject:  RE: How do you this XML document to this other one (DTD to DTD)




Hi Francois,

You wrote

> Ed,
>
> thanks for the solution.
> It looks like i am going to have only one template in the stylesheet.
> The one for the root you gave to me.
> I wonder if it makes sense to use XSL as a data reformatter in thix
> context.
> I mean this is not modular.
> The problem here is that i have to populate a output data structure from
an
> input data structure.
>
> Do you think  it makes sense to use XSL as a data reformatter in thix
> context?
> Francois


I think you are saying, and please correct me if I am wrong, that because
the stylesheet I proposed has only one template, it is not modular.  I'm
not
exactly sure what you mean by "modular", but it would certainly have been
possible
to have had multiple templates rather than the single one I proposed.  For
example,
the <xsl:value-of select="foo/bar"/> could have been written as
<xsl:apply-templates select="foo"/> and then have we would have had a
template
for the foo element like this:

<xsl:template match="foo">
     <xsl:value-of select="bar"/>
</xsl:template>

Though my solution did not illustrate multiple templates,
I like to describe XSL <b>at its highest level</b>, as being data-driven
rather than procedurally-driven (like Perl).  This requires a bit of
paradigm shift
in the way about how one thnks, but it is a very rewarding shift to make.

Though you may have used a relatively simple example for your note, I've
found
that XSL (specifically XSLT now) scales very well.  For doing XML tree
transformations,
I'd say XSL is your best bet, especially once the XSL spec becomes a
Recommendation and
popular tools such as browsers editors begin to fully support it.

Now I admit, I still need to use Java or Perl now and then for XML
transformations
but having used XSL (and DSSSL) for quite a while now, I've found that XSL
has become
my first choice because it, and the XSL tools available since January, can
provide very elegant solutions for very complex problems.  In short, I find
that it can
do 90% of what I need it to do and then I leave the other 10% (eg.
per-character
text processing) to other apps.
Now that XSL implementations like James Clark's XT ("http://www.jclark.com
")
support
external calls to languages like ECMAScript and Java, I would strongly
recommend XSL
as being the first candidate to consider when complex XML tree
transformations are
required.

Regards, Ed


 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