- From: Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:33:27 +0100
- To: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Tue 2003-11-25 Robin Berjon wrote: > [...] > Well feel free to try it then :) Or at least try the thought > experiment. Look at how an XSLT processor works, at vaguely the > things you need to get it to work. Now imagine the same thing with > incremental transformation. Not even xsl:value-of remains the same. > Your XPath library has to change in non-negligible ways. Sure! > Actually I'm trying to think of a single XSLT construct that doesn't > need to be very heavily changed and can't find one. Sure, you might > be able to reuse little bits of code here and there, Yes, many parts of XPath might be reusable. Executing a simple XPath against a given tree would probably work quite similiarly, no? > but honestly you'll probably spend more time looking for them than > you would reimplementing them. I don't think this type of vague speculation (on both sides :) brings us any further, so let's see what implementers will actually say and do. Tobi -- http://www.pinkjuice.com/
Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2003 10:32:16 UTC