Subject: Re: XSL controversy From: Denys Duchier <Denys.Duchier@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: 08 Aug 1999 14:29:36 +0200 |
James Clark <jjc@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > - XSLT is better at down translations that up translations; if your > transformation is going from a less-structured form to a more-structured > form, XSLT may not be a good choice > > - XSLT is better at transformations on structure than transformations on > content; if your transformation is doing complex transformations on the > text content of the document, XSLT may not be a good choice The technique that I use is to get XSLT to create input for a tool appropriate for the transformation. For example, I process a lot of documentation with program examples for which I want to provide syntax highlighting. In order to add highlighting markup, I use XSLT to extract code fragments and create a file of emacs lisp which when executed outputs a file of XML with the code fragments augmented with highlighting markup obtained using font-lock mode. Emacs _is_ the right tool for syntax highlighting. To attempt this directly in XSLT would not be a fun exercise :-) Cheers, -- Dr. Denys Duchier Denys.Duchier@xxxxxxxxxxxx Forschungsbereich Programmiersysteme (Programming Systems Lab) Universitaet des Saarlandes, Geb. 45 http://www.ps.uni-sb.de/~duchier Postfach 15 11 50 Phone: +49 681 302 5618 66041 Saarbruecken, Germany Fax: +49 681 302 5615 XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: XSL controversy, James Clark | Thread | Re: XSL controversy, Marcus Carr |
RE: XSL controversy, Sebastian Rahtz | Date | RE: XSL controversy, Sebastian Rahtz |
Month |