Cascading. ( Re: Recursive Template Application )

Subject: Cascading. ( Re: Recursive Template Application )
From: Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:00:04 -0700
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Matt Sergeant 

> > > Actually there is a standard way, but its outside the realm of XSLT and
> > > inside the realm of XML. Its called "cascading" and is detailed in the
> > > HTML 4.0 spec, and referenced explicitly in
> > >

I'm sorry, I failed to find the word 'cascading' in the URL you are providing.
(funny that, eh?)
> > > The only processor I'm aware of that directly supports this model is AxKit
> > > (funny that, eh?), although I'm certain there must be others. I've written
> > > a sort of high-level overview of how this works on the axkit web
> > > site:

I think it is good for AxKit that AxKit supports cascading. I actualy think 
that AxKit project is very consistent with perl culture and the way it supports 
w3c standards  is very natural for perl.

> > ... or you may just invoke Ux in command line mode, instead of invoking 
> > XT itself.
> > 
> > ux  "transformation_1.xsl |  transformation_2.xsl | transformation_n.xsl "
> That is not the same thing - this does not use the w3c ratified technique 
> for cascading styling - like most other XSLT stylers, this uses a custom
> non-ratified, non-standard technique for cascading.

It is good you have a standard technique to support some typical 
usecases, like:

"cat some.xml |  aggregate.xsl | expand_widgets.xsl |  render2pdf.xsl | render.class "


"cat some.xml |  aggregate.xsl | expand_widgets.xsl |  render2html.xsl "

Mind to share how to do that with  AxKit powered by appropriate w3c 
standard technique for cascading ?

> Ux sounds nice, but its not what I was talking about ;-)

Those who need standards, may try  AxKit, those who need 
chaining XSLT transformations in ... I think - convinient ... way  -
may use Ux.  

AxKit and w3c cascading ( yet undefined ) is nice, I just think that because 
the problem domain addressed by AxKit  ( and w3c ) is actualy self-limited -
there is no criminal to explain that there is some solution ( called Ux ) 

1. Avoids hardcoding of data/processing binding into the document 
( this  makes Ux different from w3c and saxon )

2. Avoids usage of xt:nodeset() non-standard extension.

I'm sorry if it was  not appropriate to place this view on chaining 
in reply to your letter ( because I now realize that your leter was 
actualy talking about the standards which are good for us, right ? )



Poor me, who is now using document( "!/ ls | sort | verbose") in almost 
every XSLT stylesheet ....  It is not standard....

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread