[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> Quite apart from what you like (or may happen to dislike),
> consider this: What is XSLT without XPath but Hamlet without
> the Prince of Denmark? If you like tags so much, why haven't
> you asked for XPath in tag syntax too?
I think that the XML-based syntax of XSLT gives significant benefits for
the parts of the language that are concerned with generating output
trees. It would give no benefit for the parts that are reading, or
calculating values, from the input tree. That's one reason why I have
been bemused by some of the comments on this list suggesting that we
have drawn the boundary between XPath 2.0 and XSLT 2.0 in the wrong
place (i.e., that we should have put more of the new functionality on
the XSLT side of the boundary). It just shows you can't please everyone!
If you are doing everything using xsl:element and xsl:attribute, rather
than using literal result elements and attribute value templates, then I
can see why you find using an XML-based syntax a pain: you're getting
all of the costs and none of the benefits.
Michael Kay
Software AG
home: Michael.H.Kay@ntlworld.com
work: Michael.Kay@softwareag.com
|
