[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> That makes perfect sense if you are looking at the XML as a document
> with no semantic other than presentation.
Actually many of my documents contain mathematics that i hope doesn't
just have presentational semantics.
But I just really meant the point that you re-inforced:
> Placing simplifying constraints on the transforms seems to make it a
> plausible approach...
It's clearly possible, if you know what you are doing, to write specific
transforms for specific documents that have a reliable inverse mapping,
but the nature of XSLT makes it a highly unsuitable language for that
use. You can't simply constrain the usage by restricting to a subset of
the language: the default behaviour of an XSLT stylesheet is to discard
all element markup and return a character string. Since that presumably
isn't much use if you want to interact with the original document,
you'll need to specify constraints on the result having the right
properties rather than constraints on the way the XSLT is used.
That's a rather hard thing to enforce. I would have thought a system
designed for editing would have been better designed to use a language
that ensures that there is a well defined mapping back from the result
to the source.
David
________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________
|
