Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Jens,
Le mardi 27 septembre 2005 à 14:15 +0200, Jens Stavnstrup a écrit :
> Eric,
>
> Except that statement is not correct, but remain there for historical
> reasons.
Hmmm... This statement is in a page updated 2005/08/26 by Liam Quin and
I'd expect it to be accurate !
> XPath was originally part of XSL, but was separated a long time ago.
> So XSL consists only of two documents (at least the 1.0 version).
I don't think so several reasons:
* Until XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 (if that's what you're referring
to) become recommendations, the only rock solid specs on which
one should rely are XSLT 1.0 and XPath 1.0 and they definitely
describe themselves as part of the XSL family of specs.
* If you consider that XPath 2.0 has moved along to new areas with
the XQuery 1.0 spec, you should also consider that XSLT 2.0 has
done the same "migration" and XSL should be for you only one
document (and not two).
Furthermore, my answer is and will remain relevant in the context of a
question asking how XPath is related to XSL-FO!
Eric
--
Have you ever thought about unit testing XSLT templates?
http://xsltunit.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
(ISO) RELAX NG ISBN:0-596-00421-4 http://oreilly.com/catalog/relax
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
