[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> I would say that your conclusion mirrors the rationale for XSLT
>
> "This specification defines the syntax and semantics of XSLT, which is a
> language for transforming XML documents into other XML documents."
Yes, that is why I believe that XSLT is best used for general
transformation tasks, rather than for styling documents.
Pipelining is an important addition to XSLT and will certainly be useful
for some transformation tasks. However I believe that it will not make
XSLT any more suitable as a styling language, as it will make the
connection between the input and output documents even vaguer than it is
at present. Customising complex styling transforms will still be very
difficult without detailed study of the default templates.
> IMHO, the language isn't so much at fault. It is the presumption of a
> limited run-time model. Or simply the lack of maturity in what really is
> a family of complicated formatting processes.
Or perhaps an unfortunate choice of styling model. By choosing to
transform the document structure tree into an entirely separate page
layout tree, (rather than annotating the document with formatting
properties as in CSS), the styling becomes harder to specify and to
customise.
Best regards,
Michael Day
--
YesLogic Prince prints XML!
http://yeslogic.com
|
