Subject: [xsl] Quasi-Literals and XML From: Linda van den Brink <lvdbrink@xxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 14:04:39 +0100 |
Hi all, I just saw a reference on http://www.xmlhack.com to an article named "Quasi-Literals and XML". This article talks about Minimal-XML and criticizes XSL: "XSL is a specialized language built specifically for transforming XML, into XML or other notations, but not for transforming other notations into XML. Most damaging, XSL is not Turing complete (does not have the power of any general purpose programming language), and so is severely restricted in the transformations it can express .../... The E quasi-parser framework combines the directness of XSL-style match-bind-substitute programming with the power of general purpose programming. " Has anyone here read this? The statement about XSL not being Turing complete came to me as a surprise. I can remember a discussion on this list about the Turing-completeness of XSL back in 1999. [See http://www.biglist.com/lists/xsl-list/archives/199905/msg00176.html for James Clark's contribution to that discussion). I thought the XSL gurus back then pretty much agreed that XSL was Turing-complete? It may be an academic issue, but then why is it used in an article like this to criticize XSL and propagate an alternative? Is this to be taken seriously? Linda XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] do you know about others XSL , frank Stein | Thread | Re: [xsl] Quasi-Literals and XML, David Carlisle |
[xsl] do you know about others XSL , frank Stein | Date | [xsl] Finding all occurences of a n, Martin Renner |
Month |