(retry) Re: [SML] Whether to support Attribute or not?

[Leigh Dodds]

Oren Ben-Kiki wrote:
> As for whether SML should contain attributes: the only good
> reason given for them was improved performance. Let's examine the case of
> streaming SML XSLT processor

<snip!>

> The document can be in any order, the stylesheet would look like:
>
> <xsl:template match="tag[id='value']">
>     <xsl:for-each select="sub-tag">
>         ...
>     </xsl:for-each>
> </xsl:template>

Without wanting to detract from Oren's posting, or sound facietious...

In these examples it seems implicit that you're assuming that your
streaming XSLT processor uses an XML parser (or an SML parser
that supports attributes and namespaces) - as the XSLT examples
clearly use attributes.

If you're using an SML processor, then you can use XSLT if
it supports attributes and namespaces, if not then you'll need an revised
XSLT standard that doesn't use match="" or xsl:template.

So no attributes - no SML XSLT processor. You need S-XSLT.
No namespaces - no SML XSLT processor. You need S-XSLT.

If SML supports namespaces, and attributes, then you can
use XSLT. Assuming that SML 'bit-of-data' (its not a document)
has a document element (isn't that required for XSLT?). If SML
still supports the notion of no document element, then again
you need S-XSLT

Don't these knock-on effects on other standards smack of re-inventing
the wheel?

Or am I missing something here, and I've now got egg all over
my face?

L.


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)