Re: [Fwd: Re: Language is not markup and markup is not language.]

[Chris Maden <crism@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

[Kay Michael]
> You are suggesting that the statements "XSL is turing complete" and
> "An XSL processor can be written in XSL" are equivalent. Another
> interesting assertion, can you prove or justify it?

I am not a computer scientist, but isn't that the point of the theory
of Turing completeness?  If an XSL processor can be written in one
Turing-complete language, one can be written in any Turing-complete
language.  If that's true, then "X is Turing-complete" and "An XSL
processor can be written in X" are equivalent.  No?

-Chris
-- 
<!NOTATION SGML.Geek PUBLIC "-//Anonymous//NOTATION SGML Geek//EN">
<!ENTITY crism PUBLIC "-//O'Reilly//NONSGML Christopher R. Maden//EN"
"<URL>http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/crism/ <TEL>+1.617.499.7487
<USMAIL>90 Sherman Street, Cambridge, MA 02140 USA" NDATA SGML.Geek>


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list