- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:46:44 +0000
- To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>, www-tag@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Anne van Kesteren writes: > On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:22:32 +0100, Henry S. Thompson > <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>> Not sure how you concluded that it's a "half way house" between >>> xslt and javascript. >> >> Only that a moderately big deal is made in the introduction (the only >> part I've read carefully so far :-) of the ability XBL2 provides for >> effectively re-ordering children. . . > > The difference from XSLT for this particular scenario is that XBL > doesn't actually alter the underlying DOM. The behavior XBL adds is > also "optional": a document means the same with or without the > associated XBL being applied. That's what I was trying to suggest -- not XSLT, but not just script either. But your reply, which is echoed in the spec., confuses me. When I point my browser at an XML document with an <?xml-stylesheet. . .?> PI, e.g. [1], in what sense does anything "alter the underlying DOM"? The XML DOM is left alone, an new HTML DOM is built, and rendered. XSLT is spec'd to produce a new, distinct result tree, certainly not to modify its input. . . ht [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/structures.xml - -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh Half-time member of W3C Team 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFviT0kjnJixAXWBoRAmX4AJ0Q5uNnn1oagEfdiUApQJA4sZ06rwCfdcvm 5aDxzVbTnrD0ySwg3zs1Mzg= =m4Nz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Monday, 29 January 2007 16:47:18 UTC