Subject: RE: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable? (was: N : M transformation) From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:55:14 -0000 |
> And one more time I disagree with this. The problem is not as bad as > you make it out. You do not need to say that the input must be > derived from some source XML document. You simply need to state that > when the input is derived directly from a source XML document, then > the data model is precisely specified. I have actually been in favour of defining one specific route from a source XML document to a data model object that all processors must support, but I haven't persuaded my colleagues to accept the principle, let alone the details of what that route should be. Michael Kay Software AG home: Michael.H.Kay@xxxxxxxxxxxx work: Michael.Kay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable, Elliotte Rusty Harol | Thread | Re: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable, Charles White |
Re: [xsl] omitting empty elements w, Jeni Tennison | Date | Re: [xsl] xsl:output/@indent="yes" , Tobias Reif |
Month |