On 4/30/05, Karl Stubsjoen <kstubs(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Therefore, any problem, which has solution using the xxx:node-set()
extension function should have a solution without using it.
I tend to disagree with that statement. I am in the middle of a
project now which is using xxx:node-set() quite regularly processing
xml fragments that have been transformed, grouped, sorted and in some
case summarized in order to drive other data validation and lookups.
I am having to ask questions like: "Does this item exist with this
item? If so do they overlap, are they in correct combination with
these other items..." and so on.. However, my XSLT is probably just
ok, so maybe there is a better way. I can give some examples of the
kind of data we are validating if you are interested.
Karl,
Your original question was:
"Is the obvious (and only) solution to use xxx:node-set against
transformed / sorted XML?"
You've got the answer to this: "No"
The fact that a "pure" XSLT 1.0 solution exists doesn't mean it is
more elegant and nowhere did I recommend using such pure solution over
the corresponding xxx:node-set() one.
We must have *proofs*, not "believes" whether XSLT 1.0 is
Turing-complete or whether a Turing-complete language can express any
XSLT transformation using the xxx:node-set() extension.
Just saying that "XSLT 1.0 cannot solve taskX" is not a proof, it is a belief.
In fact, there were such believes in the past that were proven wrong :o)
Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev.
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--