[Kurt Cagle]

> I don't think that XSLT should be OO, but I argue in a book that I'm
writing
> that XSLT, in conjunction with Schema, XLink and RDF, works best when the
> whole is considered as an OO system. XSLT serves as a mechanism for
defining
> methods on XML objects defined by schemas, schemas can be used as
> constructors, inheritance is a natural consequence of the importing and
> including mechanisms that XSLT has, and the stateless nature of XSLT
> transformations makes concepts such as garbage collection pretty much
moot.
> The definition of encapsulation has to be stretched a bit, since you have
> the multiple distinct conditions that XSLT makes it possible to create
> methods that apply equally well to schemas that may have no particular
> elements in common, but that are relationally similar.
>
>
Hmm, xml-schemas prominently feature restriction, which isn't a part of
standard O-O technologies.  References I made earlier to an O-O analogy were
only to the building block aspect; I wasn't claiming that xslt is/should be
thought of as object-oriented in general.

We don't, though, have standard terms to express generalizations of
"objects" and O-O approaches, so we tend to use the term in a loose way, or
even as a metaphor.  Is that how you are using it, Kurt?

Cheers,

Tom P


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