Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: "Arjun Ray" <email@example.com>,<firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] How to spell "No PSVI" in XSLT 2.0 ?
- From: "Dare Obasanjo" <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 10:27:53 -0700
- Thread-index: AcH/j3/EAEfniYaeRayxYlDr6z53FwAk14JQ
- Thread-topic: [xml-dev] How to spell "No PSVI" in XSLT 2.0 ?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arjun Ray [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 4:47 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] How to spell "No PSVI" in XSLT 2.0 ?
> Paul Prescod <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> | If they switched from XML they would lose compatibility with XML
> | Schema and XSLT,
> How so? What compatibility, other than the mere use of
> pointy brackets, is at issue?
As Paul later pointed out is that they'd have to define a mapping from
their custom syntax to an XML infoset which in itself isn't hard.
> | Of course they could define a mapping from paren-prefix notation to
> | XML
> | infoset but that strikes me as extra effort with no payoff.
> The payoff could be an easier syntax ( => simpler parser )
> for the map.
You are only focusing on one tiny aspect of the implementation. An XML
parser that doesn't have to deal with DTDs is not difficult to implement
so the payoff there is small. On the other hand, creating transformers
from their custom syntax to XML syntax or XML object models so that they
get the benefits of XSD or XSLT is an unecessary step that adds runtime
overhead and would involve their users having to learn separate syntaxes
and other problems.
For instance, if a stylesheet or validation error occurs in their custom
syntax should the offending data be shown as XML or in their custom
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
Any given program, when running, is obsolete.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
You assume all risk for your use. (c) 2002 Microsoft Corporation. All