[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi Bob,
> The only thing that jumped out as a potential issue, which you also
> highlighted, is the incorporation of XSLT into the language. I'm
> afraid this is the camel's nose in the tent. Though your use of XSLT
> in the examples is carefully restricted, leaving the door ajar will
> invite the full language in and effectively prevent any
> implementation other than by XSLT. I am concerned that a process
> that might be performed as a side effect of validation could have
> overheads that swamp those of validation, itself.
>
> My suggestion is to carefully evaluate where you found XSLT useful
> (as in providing a template capability for error messages) and
> design your own language around these requirements. Any
> implementation via XSLT is going to first translate the document
> into an XSLT stylesheet, anyway, and it will have no trouble
> translating those elements (back) into XSLT syntax.
Yep; I think these are very reasonable comments. Looking over the test
datatype libraries that I put together, the parts that were useful
were:
- the ability to create elements and text
- the ability to define variables
- the ability to get the "value-of" an XPath expression
- conditional code (choose/if)
I also used some XSLT-only functions within the XPaths, in particular
format-number(), but that will hopefully be incorporated into XPath
2.0 anyway.
So I think it will be very easy to restrict what's needed in the code
sections to something a lot less burdensome to implementations.
Thanks,
Jeni
---
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/
|
