Lists Home |
Date Index |
> I say it is simply impossible to use any old XSLT and be able to
round trip XML.
Must be an echo in here. That's exactly what I said. ;-}
As I also said, some people look at the general problem, see it is
intractable and don't even try. Others, and I guess Xopus is one, try to
support the cases that work. Their approach, if they do a good job and
if they also support CSS, should handle at least the special cases your
product supports. Whether one is better than the other probably comes
down to implementation quality.
Robert Koberg wrote:
> Bob Foster wrote:
>> Robert Koberg wrote:
>> > Sjoerd Visscher wrote:
>> >> You are exactly describing what Xopus does. (http://xopus.com)
>> >> Although the other suggested editors will work, Xopus is the *only*
>> >> editor that lets you use your existing publishing xslts for wysiwyg
>> >> editing.
>> > How is this possible? What if your transformation is lossy or adds
>> > things?-- How do you know what to roundtrip?
>> > Can you have multiple content pieces on a page? How do you know where
>> > content pieces are as opposed to page structure?
>> I can't answer for Xopus (and I'd like to hear their answer), but
>> restricted cases are possible. The basic idea would be: In XSL every
>> input node and result/output node are uniquely numbered. For any input
>> text node that is copied directly to output without modification (or
>> with trivial idiomatic modifications like whitespace normalization), a
>> transitive 1-to-many correspondence could be established. If the user
>> modified an output node for which such a correspondence existed, the
>> input node and all other output nodes in correspondence with it could
>> be changed, as well.
> Yea, thats my point. But the other person claimed you can use any old
> XSLT. I just don't see how it is possible -- no matter what. It is the
> same as compression for jpeg, mp3 or any other lossy compression--you
> simply cannot go back. You cannot take an MP3 and get it back to the
> same CD (or better) quality of the original. If a transformation adds
> something then the roundtripping has to be told what is not to be stored
> in the content.
>> XSL is a Turing-complete language; you can easily write a stylesheet
>> in which there is no traceable correspondence between any input and
>> output nodes. But I guess this line of argument is good for Xopus,
>> because the arguments might keep others from trying to solve even the
>> simple cases.
> we (http://livestoryboard.com) have a custom browser-based, schema
> validating, ~wysiwyg~ editor in our CMS. Editors can edit individual
> content pieces (styled with CSS) or edit a page that contains several
> content pieces (page is mostly styled by XSLT and content areas are
> styled with CSS).
>> The real question, I think, is when you do what you can do along these
>> lines, do you get a useful result? Don't know. It would depend a lot
>> on how people write their stylesheets.
> yep, but that is not what the OP claimed.
>> > I think it is very wrong to have an XML editor edit an instance
>> > based on the result of transforming that instance document.
>> It's only wrong if it doesn't work. ;-}
> I say it is simply impossible to use any old XSLT and be able to round
> trip XML.
>> Bob Foster
>> > Or perhaps
>> > roundtripping rules needs to be setup for each transformation??? Or
>> > perhaps the transformations have to be done in a certain way??
>> > -Rob
>> >> Other editors use the limited possibilities of CSS or require you to
>> >> create a proprietary transformation for wysiwyg editing.