Subject: RE: Style vs. transformation
From: Rob McDougall <RMcDouga@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 10:20:47 -0500
|
Paul, your arguments about the style language being a transformation are
compelling, and I'm afraid I must reluctantly agree. That's what I get
for arguing with someone who's been thinking about this longer than I
have :).
So now that I concede that there's only a requirement for one language,
my next question is "Is that language XSL?". To put things another way,
"Can I use XSL as a general XML->XML transformation language?".
By my reading of the spec, I'd have to say "maybe". As I understand it,
the actions in the construction rules may only contain flow objects and
macros. Macros are defined in terms of flow objects. Flow objects are
either pre-defined by the processor or defined by the user (per 6.3
Extensibility).
Section 6.3 seems a bit vague on what the mechanism for creating new
flow objects will be. Can flow objects be defined using ECMAScript?
Can flow objects be defined using native libraries?
If I can extend XSL to do general XML->XML transformations, I will be
happy.
Rob
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
|