At 11:55 1998 03 11 -0500, Paul Grosso wrote:
>At 11:12 1998 03 11 -0500, Rob McDougall wrote:
>>Recently, when I was examining the XSL spec and the XLL spec, it
>>occurred to me that the purpose of XLL is very similar to the purpose of
>>patterns in XSL.  Both are used for identifying one or more target
>>elements in the destination document.  They share a lot of common
>>functionality for locating the target elements.  Why then, are the two
>>syntaxes so different?
. . .
>
>There is quite a bit of overlap in people on the XML and XSL WGs.
>
>The key reasons for differences between XPointer (the part of XLL 
>that defines addressing) syntax and XSL pattern syntax are the
>user requirements, not heritage.  And user requirements for XPointer
>and XSL patterns do differ.
. . .
>
>XSL is not an exercise in trying to cram all the cool stuff we can think
>of into one standard.  On the contrary, we are trying to learn from XML
>(and the wide-spread-within-W3C reaction to the XML PR which was that it
>was still too complex) and keep as much as possible out of the standard 
>while still addressing a reasonable set of user requirements and design
>goals.  Speaking for myself, I will argue to keep XSL patterns relatively
>simple.  Greater "selective power" may be allowed on the right hand side
>(the "action"), but even there we may not match XPointer capabilities 100%.

In case it's not clear, I am not speaking for the XML or XSL WG or anybody
else in my posting.  Rob's posting raised a question I'd heard raised by 
others, and it is a reasonable question to raise.  I'm merely stating my 
current personal opinion (which may change as I evaluate further input).

paul 


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list