This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
RE: key() Re: Saxon VS XT
- To: "'xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com'" <xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com>
- Subject: RE: key() Re: Saxon VS XT
- From: Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen <TRA at stibo dot dk>
- Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 12:38:41 +0200
- Reply-To: xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com
> > Apparently Sebastian did not document his stylesheet.
> > There was a thread some time ago upon the topic of embedding
> > documentation within style sheets, for exactly this reason.
>
> I think it is very bad approach to 'solve' the readability problem
> with writing the comments. Code should be self-documenting.
You are thinking of comments. I was referring to actual _documentation_ since that is basically what is needed here. We discussed ways to annotate a functional XSLT file in order to produce a new document which serves as the full documentation (i.e. what you ask for). This annotation should be possible for each and every tag, and provide a fuller set of possibilities than just adding comments.
I suggest you reread the thread in the archive upto the conclusions.
> The language which *requires* usage of the 'tuning
> roadsign' has no future. 'Tuning roadsign' is for tuning.
> It is for 'computer'. 'Language' is for human beings.
Well. Back when C was in its infacy the "register" keyword allowed the programmer to help the compiler. When XSLT technology improves we can expect (while using a lot of CPU-cycles) to have the XSLT processor detect and apply such optimizations automatically. Another example is the quality and speed of Java interpreters, at the cost of complexity and size of the interpreter/compiler.
The original issue still applies: A 100% conformant XSLT processor must implement key(), in the same way that every C compiler today must recognize the "register" keyword.
--
Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen "...and...Tubular Bells!"
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list