----- Original Message ----- From: "Vadim Gritsenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Nicola Ken Barozzi'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 5:56 PM Subject: RE: Allowed Sitemap Constructs
> > From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Maybe repeating things already said but, now, is there a real semantic > > need of matchers *and* selectors? > > It seems that it's taken from the xsl:template and xsl:choose stuff. > > But here there is no real semantic gain... or is there? > > There is couple of differences between matchers and selectors: > 1. Matchers do return map to the sitemap, selectors - don't. > You can't emulate matchers using selector. What is the real need of inhibiting a selector to return a map? > 2. Selectors have <otherwise>, matchers - don't. > And you can't emulate selector's <otherwise> using matchers. IMHO a last match with "**" has the same use of map:otherwise. Also, taken from http://xml.apache.org/cocoon/userdocs/concepts/matchers_selectors.html "Obviously, this could have been done with matchers as well. Decide on yourself, what appears clearer to you in a specific situation." Are we just using two component types out of need or maybe design considerations have changed since the original spec? -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] These are the days of miracle and wonder... ...so don't cry baby, don't cry... Paul Simon
smime.p7s
Description: application/pkcs7-signature
