Subject: Re: Fw: A weaker XSL?
From: Paul Prescod <paul@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 06:16:14 -0600
|
You can be confident that the "buffers" approach was explicitly rejected.
It is the mechanism used in the most popular transformation tool in the
SGML world, "omnimark." I think of tree navigation based languages as a
reaction *against* that.
Oren Ben-Kiki wrote:
>
> I think this would allow doing anything XSL allows in a single SAX pass.
How do you express "if my parent's parent's last sibling's 'security'
attribute is 'top secret' then generate a digital-signature element" or
more generally "if there exists an element with the following
characteristics"
--
Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself
http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco
"Remember, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did,
but she did it backwards and in high heels."
--Faith Whittlesey
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
|