Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> From: Manos Batsis [mailto:m.batsis@b...] <snip/> > | -----Original Message----- > | From: Michael Brennan [mailto:Michael_Brennan@A...] > > | Reproducing XSLTs "default template" behavior is not always a > | good thing. > | I've always felt that I'd love to have something XSLT-like, > | but which I can > | exercise more explicit control over default behaviors. For > | instance, if you > | wanted to use an XSLT-like mechanism for implementing a web > | service (rather > | than a straight RPC binding), then you certainly don't want > a default > | template behavior that just copies text nodes to output. > > Absolutely. But things like a default behavior can save you > from endless > typing; just imagine XSLT without them. All I want to say is, it would > be a good thing to have default behaviors and just turn them > on or off. > A mechanism for one to define his own default behaviors would be even > better; I think this feature will be relatively easy to build > since all > you will need is "pattern matching" on SAX streams, which is the basic > idea anyway. Actually, the nature of STX(?) may well *not* distinguish > between such a thing and a pattern of your making, just think > of it in a > predefined pattern in the implementation that you can flag on or off. That sounds like a reasonable approach. > A more complex thing to deal with will be axis related stuff as the > system will have to remember appropriate events according to desirable > patterns... Yes, indeed. I think it is reasonable to constrain what axes may be used in an expression, here. That can greatly simplify implementation and still serve a broad range of use cases. It is still a challenge, though. This sounds like it will be useful. I look forward to seeing how this evolves.
|
