Subject: RE: XSL controversy From: James Robertson <jamesr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 09 Aug 1999 09:15:56 +1000 |
> - 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
Hi everyone, I'm using XSLT for importing data from (very unstructred) HTML pages into (well structured) XML. Although I agree that XSLT is better going the other direction, I've found that XSLT is excellent for my application. The XSLT code simpler and easier to understand than it would be in a procedural language.
Up translations are hard, potentially very hard. All depending on how unstructured the source material is.
I use Omnimark for this sort of work, and it has a lot of nice features for this. Like regular expression parsing intertwined with SGML element handling.
And I generally use _all_ of Omnimark's nifty features in an up translate.
But, actually, this really isn't a big criticism of something like XSLT. There are already quite a few SGML "conversion" or "publishing" tools that are good for down translates but not up translates.
You need a complex, powerful language to handle up translates. XSLT's advantage is its relative simplicity (at least for simple tasks).
------------------------- James Robertson Step Two Designs Pty Ltd SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy http://www.steptwo.com.au/ jamesr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Beyond the Idea" ACN 081 019 623
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: XSL controversy, Noah Booth | Thread | Precedence property, Steve Schafer |
RE: XSL controversy, Didier PH Martin | Date | Re: XSL controversy, Marcus Carr |
Month |