- From: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 08:44:18 +0100
- To: "Alan Painter" <alan.painter@gmail.com>
- Cc: xproc-dev@w3.org
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Alan Painter <alan.painter@gmail.com> wrote: > > Just a general question on XProc, > > I know that Calabash is based upon the Saxon APIs. > > But I'm curious if anyone (other than yours truly) has been thinking > about or working on an XSLT implementation of XProc. > > One couldn't do everything in XSLT, but it seems to me that a lot of > it could be implemented in this way and you would get a lot of the > implementation "for free". it may appear that way ... but the heavy costs/price elsewhere will more then offset any 'free' bits ... > Try/Catch wouldn't work directly (except perhaps in the Saxonica SA > extensions) but would require some redirection. then there is p:director-list,p:xquery, p:exec,p:http-request, etc...all of which would need extension (though most of these problematic steps are optional). the biggest issue will be getting the right approach for * I can only imagine that implementing p:declare-step will be very difficult * processing nested subpipelines * putting things in the correct scope e.g. with p:import and p:library even simply naming things like steps with defaults (as required by the spec) will be difficult to get right in XSLT > Anyone else think that an XSLT implementation would be worth a shot? I am not saying its impossible, but unless you have some sort of algorithm or approach that is unique and worth fleshing out I would say dont do it ... if you want to apply your XSLT chops to something with xproc then I have a few ideas that may interest you; * XSLT transform to generate a pipeline diagram in svg * XSLT transform to generate xproc documentation from a pipeline * XSLT transform to lint cleaner, though I would use schematron for this hth, Jim Fuller cheers, Jim Fuller
Received on Tuesday, 23 December 2008 07:44:53 UTC