Subject: RE: [xsl] Variables and HTML From: Pieter Reint Siegers Kort <pieter.siegers@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:57:34 -0600 |
Thanx Michael, that makes a lot of sense to me. Cheers, <prs/> -----Original Message----- From: Michael Kay [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Viernes, 11 de Marzo de 2005 12:47 p.m. To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [xsl] Variables and HTML > That leaves me with the question why it is not encouragable to couple > transformers and serializers... may we assume that serializers are > kept out of the spec's domain is because serializers are too system > specific? It comes down to pipelining, or closure. A property of XSLT is that the input data model is the same as the output data model. The operations in XSLT take trees as input and produce trees as output. The language is "closed" over the data model. The benefit of this is composability: any two transformations can be combined to produce a larger transformation. Hence pipelines. Serialization should be separate because it breaks away from the data model and produces something different: its output is a different kind of thing from its input. Only by keeping serialization separate from transformation do you preserve the closure property of the transformation language, and hence its composability. Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] Variables and HTML, Carmelo Montanez | Thread | Re: [xsl] Variables and HTML, Nathan Young |
[xsl] XSLT 1 and 2 differences (d-o, Midsummer Sun | Date | RE: [xsl] XSLT 1 and 2 differences , Pieter Reint Siegers |
Month |