I would suggest that this won't give you any meaningful results. The
complexity of an XSLT transformation is driven by the
structural/formatting differences between the input and the output
formats. It is not directly related to the complexity of the schemata for
the input/output formats.
The complexity of an XSLT transformation is also driven by the number of
ID/IDREF "joins" that are required. So XTM scores badly on that ground,
as does XBRL for a similar reason (it uses XLink to impose all
structure). However, that doesn't tell you about complexity, it rather
tells you about which vocabularies are nearer to XSLT's "sweet spot", and
which are not.
Cheers,
Tony.
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 16:56:02 +0100, Lars Marius Garshol
<larsga(_at_)garshol(_dot_)priv(_dot_)no> wrote:
I'm writing a paper where I'm evaluating different XML vocabularies
for expressing the same information, and one of my evaluation criteria
is how easily the resulting XML can be processed with XSLT. At the
moment the paper contains only prose with a subjective appraisal of
the various approaches. This is fine, as far as it goes, but it would
be nice to have something more objective to back it up with. Are there
any established criteria for evaluating the complexity of XSLT
stylesheets?
--
Anthony B. Coates, Director
Information Design, Messaging and Management
mailto:abcoates(_at_)idmm(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk
Mobile/Cell: +44 (79) 0543 9026
--
MDDL Editor (Market Data Definition Language)
http://www.mddl.org/
FpML AWG Member (Financial Products Markup Language)
http://www.fpml.org/
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--