[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- To: 'XML-Dev Mailing list' <xml-dev@xml.org>
- Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 21:07:50 -0500
At 02:45 AM 11/20/00 +0100, Robin Berjon wrote:
>At 15:51 19/11/2000 -0800, Paul Tchistopolskii wrote:
>><q href =http://www.jclark.com/xml/xslt-talk.htm>
>
>Talking about those slides, I have a (possibly naive) question. I've read
>several times that XSLT is good only for transformations from more to less
>structured. I might be missing something, but given that it is meant to
>transform a tree is it possible that it be otherwise ? In other words, this
>doesn't appear to be a valid _criticism_ of XSLT as it isn't meant to be
>able to do more than at best reproduce the complexity of the source tree.
>
>So, to rephrase, is this meant as a criticism -- in which case I have
>missed something -- or is it a simple statement intended toward people who
>hadn't noticed ?
I don't think it's criticism in the sense that XSLT fails to deliver what
it promises.
It suggests, however, that more than XSLT is needed under certain conditions.
That was pretty much my point. It's not that XSLT is bad - it's that XSLT
doesn't solve every problem efficiently, and there may be room for more
tools to solve those problems.
Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books
|
