Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Leigh Dodds <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Oren Ben-Kiki <email@example.com>, xml-dev <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 11:31:26 -0000
Oren Ben-Kiki wrote:
> As for whether SML should contain attributes: the only good
> reason given for them was improved performance. Let's examine the case of
> streaming SML XSLT processor
> The document can be in any order, the stylesheet would look like:
> <xsl:template match="tag[id='value']">
> <xsl:for-each select="sub-tag">
Without wanting to detract from Oren's posting, or sound facietious...
In these examples it seems implicit that you're assuming that your
streaming XSLT processor uses an XML parser (or an SML parser
that supports attributes and namespaces) - as the XSLT examples
clearly use attributes.
If you're using an SML processor, then you can use XSLT if
it supports attributes and namespaces, if not then you'll need an revised
XSLT standard that doesn't use match="" or xsl:template.
So no attributes - no SML XSLT processor. You need S-XSLT.
No namespaces - no SML XSLT processor. You need S-XSLT.
If SML supports namespaces, and attributes, then you can
use XSLT. Assuming that SML 'bit-of-data' (its not a document)
has a document element (isn't that required for XSLT?). If SML
still supports the notion of no document element, then again
you need S-XSLT
Don't these knock-on effects on other standards smack of re-inventing
Or am I missing something here, and I've now got egg all over
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)