Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
> Ulrich Mayring wrote:
>
> > Could you explain where XSLT lacks solidity?
>
> First: it's a pain to validate because it's an heavy user of namespaces.
Sorry, I don't understand this one. Do you want to validate XSLT
stylesheets themselves? And if yes: don't they contain just the XSL
namespace?
> Second: declarativity hides the pipeline flow: you might change a
> template apply-template statement, still have a valid stylesheet, but
> change the overall behavior of the pipeline without noticing.
True.
> Third: stylesheets don't exhibit explicit in/out contracts: it's very
> hard to understand (even worse to validate!) if two stylesheets have a
> compatible behavior on a given input.
Yes, that's a function of declarative processing.
> In short: stylesheets's declarativeness was designed to make their
> contracts less solid ("if this template matches, run it, otherwise do
> nothing and don't even signal it"). It's very easy to have 'dead parts'
> of your declarative code.
>
> This is a *feature* when it comes to 'what-if' scenarios but Jeremy has
> been using them in a procedural case and this, IMO, sacrifices contract
> solidity, expecially in a multi-authored environment like this one.
Yes, I understand what you mean here. It's unproductive and error-prone
to model procedural scenarios with declarative algorithms. Either change
the scenario to become declarative or change the modelling language to
become procedural - any mixture of the two will not work.
cheers,
Ulrich
--
Ulrich Mayring
DENIC eG, Systementwicklung
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
