|
Subject: RE: [xsl] A beef with XSLT Sometimes too complicated From: "Michael Kay" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:43:54 +0100 |
> xpath can exist without xslt but not the other way round. The
> situation is (exactly) the same in XQuery, but XQuery is
> usually regarted as an extension of XPath: that is XQuery is
> a single language, with more constructs than XPath) whereas
> XSLT is usually described is a two-language construct
> consisting of xslt constructs and Xpath constructs. It's
> pretty much a marketing angle which way you describe it
> really.
I don't think that's fair: it's a genuine technical difference, which
results in different strengths and weaknesses. In XQuery you have a higher
level of composability of expressions. You can write things like
<a>{2+2}</a> = 4
(which of course you need to do all the time), and you avoid duplication of
control sructures like if and for; but the downside is that you have a more
fragile syntax (harder to extend, harder to report and recover from syntax
errors reliably) and one that means XQuery source text isn't accessible to
XML-based tools.
That's a technical design choice, not a marketing angle.
Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/
| Current Thread |
|---|
|
| <- Previous | Index | Next -> |
|---|---|---|
| Re: [xsl] A beef with XSLT Sometime, David Carlisle | Thread | Re: [xsl] A beef with XSLT Sometime, David Carlisle |
| RE: [xsl] A beef with XSLT Sometime, Michael Kay | Date | RE: [xsl] A beef with XSLT Sometime, Michael Kay |
| Month |