Subject: Re: [xsl] Unravelling Imports From: Liam R E Quin <liam@xxxxxx> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:19:23 -0400 |
On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 20:36 +0100, ihe onwuka wrote: [...] > Suppose we did go ahead and code with imports, would it be possible to > define a transform that mechanically transformed everything into monolithic > XML. I can think of a couple of strategies that might make this more tractable. (1) careful use of imports and priorities; (2) modifying an XSLT processor (or getting someone else to do it) to dump the actual in-memory representation of the template/pattern rules. In (1) I'm thinking of things like making sure every template in (say) tables.xsl, has templates that apply only to table//foo explicitly, or that use a mode, or are named and the name has a table- prefix. This is a bit like the restrictions large projects might place on the use of C++ operator overloading. Liam -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Unravelling Imports, G. Ken Holman | Thread | RE: [xsl] Unravelling Imports, Scott Trenda |
RE: [xsl] Looping, Michele R Combs | Date | Re: [xsl] Looping, Liam R E Quin |
Month |