Subject: RE: [xsl] A beef with XSLT Sometimes too complicated From: "Michael Kay" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:43:54 +0100 |
> xpath can exist without xslt but not the other way round. The > situation is (exactly) the same in XQuery, but XQuery is > usually regarted as an extension of XPath: that is XQuery is > a single language, with more constructs than XPath) whereas > XSLT is usually described is a two-language construct > consisting of xslt constructs and Xpath constructs. It's > pretty much a marketing angle which way you describe it > really. I don't think that's fair: it's a genuine technical difference, which results in different strengths and weaknesses. In XQuery you have a higher level of composability of expressions. You can write things like <a>{2+2}</a> = 4 (which of course you need to do all the time), and you avoid duplication of control sructures like if and for; but the downside is that you have a more fragile syntax (harder to extend, harder to report and recover from syntax errors reliably) and one that means XQuery source text isn't accessible to XML-based tools. That's a technical design choice, not a marketing angle. Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] A beef with XSLT Sometime, David Carlisle | Thread | Re: [xsl] A beef with XSLT Sometime, David Carlisle |
RE: [xsl] A beef with XSLT Sometime, Michael Kay | Date | RE: [xsl] A beef with XSLT Sometime, Michael Kay |
Month |