This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: schema-1 (was something about keys, a long while ago)
David Carlisle wrote:
>>For us, just being able to code a simple "typed" match without jumping
>>through any syntactical hoops would certainly make the XSL easier to
>>understand and write.
>>
>
> It's no fun at all if people take the opposite side of a debate from
> me and then make such plausible sounding arguments that there's a chance
> they might even be right...
No, and I can try to help!
While I think that powerful and expressive schema languages are a
progress, I also think that imposing them would be a regression.
Schema languages are not that new and I am still thinking that one of
the main progresses of XML over SGML is that DTDs are no longer mandatory!
And I think that it's important to make sure we can continue to perform
XSLT transformations without defining first a schema.
>
> However I'm still not toally convinced. It seems to me relatively rare
> to have lots of different element names (would have been called eleemnt
> types in an earlier era) which all have the same schema type and all
> need to be processed in the same way. If they have the same internal
> structure and the same processing one wonders what's gained by calling
> them different names.
>
> Given that you do have lost of xxx-date element names you have to
> _somewhere_ mapo them all to date. You say you don't want a long list in
> a template match (or equivalenty one assumes a lot of individual
> templates each calling a named "date" template) but the information has
> to be somewhere, for example in a list of type assignments in the
> schema, this doesn't seem so much easier to maintain.
No, and there could also be less disruptive ways of implementing this.
A schema validation, especially when it's creating a PSVI is nothing
more than a transformation and instead of creating all this new APIs and
complexity, I would have prefered if the W3C had used the existing
infoset information items.
The datatype, for instance, could have been considered (at least for
elements) as a xsi:type attribute added by the validation.
If it had been the case, matching all elements of type foo:date would
just have been a match="*[@xsi:type='foo:date']" (with the issue of
supporting QNames in XPath/XSLT which needs to be fixed anyway).
The case of attributes would have been more touchy (maybe the attributes
were really a bad idea in XML, after all) but I am convinced we could
find a way to express the PSVI by adding elements and attributes in a
specific namespace instead of creating new information items...
Eric
> David
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
> delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
> information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
> Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.
>
> XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
>
>
>
>
--
Rendez-vous à Paris pour une visite guidee de la nebuleuse XML.
http://dyomedea.com/formation/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
http://xsltunit.org http://4xt.org http://examplotron.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list