Subject: RE: [xsl] Quasi-Literals and XML From: Linda van den Brink <lvdbrink@xxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:13:05 +0100 |
David Carlisle wrote: > Of course the comment that you quote > > > "XSL is a specialized language built specifically for > transforming XML, into > > XML or other notations, but not for transforming other > notations into XML. > > is perfectly valid, and is explictly stated by the XSLT spec. > So I don't think that is necessarily a "criticism" of xsl, just a > statement of fact. I agree with you there. But that quote continues by saying that the most damaging fact about XSL is that it is not Turing-complete and is therefore severely restricted in the transformations it can express. My point is that in the first place the statement that XSL is not Turing-complete is debatable, in the second place I'm not convinced that XSL is severely restricted in the possible transformations, and in the third place I wonder whether there is a causal relationship between lack of turing-completeness of XSL and restrictions in possible transformations. Linda XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Quasi-Literals and XML, David Carlisle | Thread | RE: [xsl] Quasi-Literals and XML, Michael Kay |
[xsl] How can I use a variable out , frank Stein | Date | [xsl] Could I define a global XSL v, frank Stein |
Month |