Re: [xml-dev] SGML complexity

[<juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>]

James Fuller said:

<snip/>

>> And some people continue disagreing! Since only a subset of XML files
>> can be easily transformed via XSLT. Far from problem with dinamical
>> transformations (stuff you can do with EcmaScript-JS but not with
>> XSLT) next page
>
> 'since only a subset of XML files can be easily transformed'????
>
> untested: I should be able to able to apply an XSLT identity transform
> to anything easily.

Well, if the author of "XSLT Programmer's Reference" and "XSLT 2.0
Programmer's Reference" replies

<blockquote>
That means,
for example, that it wouldn't be my first choice of language for writing a
parser (your maths example).
</blockquote>

for the transformation of the input *XML* fragment

<math code="LaTeX">x = \frac{-b \pm \sqrt{b^2 - 4ac}}{2a}</math>

to the output XML fragment (MathML)

<math>
  <mi>x</mi>
  <mo>=</mo>
  <mfrac>
    <mrow>
      <mrow>
        <mo>-</mo>
        <mi>b</mi>
      </mrow>
      <mo>&PlusMinus;</mo>
      <msqrt>
        <msup>
          <mi>b</mi>
          <mn>2</mn>
        </msup>
        <mo>-</mo>
        <mrow>
          <mn>4</mn>
          <mo>&InvisibleTimes;</mo>
          <mi>a</mi>
          <mo>&InvisibleTimes;</mo>
          <mi>c</mi>
        </mrow>
      </msqrt>
    </mrow>
    <mrow>
      <mn>2</mn>
      <mo>&InvisibleTimes;</mo>
      <mi>a</mi>
    </mrow>
  </mfrac>
</math>

Then i recommend you begin to write a book (sorry Michael!) detailing this
kind of computational tasks. I will buy it ;-)

>> Ok, but still your initial <q>XSLT is for transformation, not
>> programming</q> and your new <q>it is *not* a programming language;
>> it's a transformation language</q> both conflict with next
>
>
> when I transform XML it is for transformation, when I am programming
> with XLST its a programming language...splitting hairs here. Also past
> turing complete, etc....can anyone come up with rigorous definition of
> 'programming language'?

I doubt of existence of rigorous definition of anything. But many of us
(including the XSLT editor at this list) see XSLT as a specific domain
programming language. I personally see XSLT as a functional like
programming language working via match pattern. I like that kind of
approach. Mathematica works also in that way but maybe you consider
Mathematica not a programming language.

>> Let me remark that the need for a full-transformation language was
>> XML-based is still open.
>
>
> I smell a product launch statement soon.....

I will be anxiously waiting for that ;-)

>
>> i am doing a full review of XSLt capabilities then i agree. Note that
>> i said in this list that XSLT has *both* strenghts and weakness. It is
>> atonishing that often your reply is just a <q>XSLT rocks</q>.
>
>
> why have you not brought such a debate to the XSLT List ?

Because i was talking about popularity of XSLT in a thread about SGML
complexity in the xml-dev list. I did not wait a debate about weakness
strenghts of XSLt but many replies focused on what you can or cannot do
with XSLT with some claiming how the lack of popularity is related to that
people try to think in XSLT in wrong ways.

>
>> Since your replies are so polarized to heavy criticism (and ad homined
>> attacks) to something/someone contradicting you, let me think twice
>> before reply to you in a future.
>
> I dont think that AL said are polarized.
>
> I struggle to see the 'point of this thread'...but hell I feel that way
> with 80% of the traffic on this list because I dont know things well
> enough.
>
> have a nice weekend.
>

Thanks i begin now and plan a travel for the Sunday!!

> cheers, Jim Fuller


Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)