Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.compilers > #3098
| From | "matt.ti...@gmail.com" <matt.timmermans@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.compilers |
| Subject | Re: The remarkable similarities between Flex/Lex and XSLT |
| Date | 2022-06-25 09:20 -0700 |
| Organization | Compilers Central |
| Message-ID | <22-06-078@comp.compilers> (permalink) |
| References | <22-06-073@comp.compilers> |
On Friday, 24 June 2022 at 09:00:44 UTC-4, Roger L Costello wrote: > Hi Folks, > > XSLT is a language for processing XML documents. > > There are remarkable similarities between Flex/Lex and XSLT. Lex was created > 47 years ago, long before XSLT. One wonders if some members of the XSLT 1.0 > Working Group were Lex users and were influenced by its concepts? It's not really about a single tool like Lex. Before XML there was SGML, which XML was supposed to "simplify". SGML included a schema language (DTD), which defines the hierarchical structure of a document using regular expressions over elements. There was also a strange unnecessary constraint on these expressions called "ambiguity", which *everybody* who wrote SGML software needed to understand, and so the idea of applying formal language techniques to SGML was inevitable. Long before XSLT, there were a variety of attempts to define languages that would allow users to specify an automatic translation from SGML into printed form. Many of these languages were context-free grammars at their core, with translation rules as actions. This is called "syntax-directed translation" and was a well-known concept long before that. With SGML, though, the problem of syntax-directed translation is different than it is in other contexts, and more difficult in many ways, because the basic structures in the input are very easy to parse -- elements are delimited after all -- but the input was a semantically marked up text and the output was a published document that had to follow all the ambiguously-defined stylistic rules that people use when they actually to typography. This meant that complicated grammars, over *element trees* instead of linear text, and lots of other ideas, needed to be applied. Lots of companies put a lot of work into it. So by the time XSLT came around, everyone on the committee as already familiar with a lot of this history from SGML processing, which was based on a lot of work rooted in the same formal language theory that goes into lexers and parsers, and that is why some of XSLT looks a lot like Lex. Unfortunately, XSLT kind of sucks. When the standard was written, the problem itself had not really been solved by industry in a really acceptable way (and it still hasn't been!), and the W3C committee fell into the trap of trying to innovate instead of codifying best practice.
Back to comp.compilers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar
The remarkable similarities between Flex/Lex and XSLT Roger L Costello <costello@mitre.org> - 2022-06-24 10:57 +0000
Re: The remarkable similarities between Flex/Lex and XSLT gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2022-06-24 06:43 -0700
Compiler-compiler-compiler Christopher F Clark <christopher.f.clark@compiler-resources.com> - 2022-06-25 18:32 +0300
Re: The remarkable similarities between Flex/Lex and XSLT "matt.ti...@gmail.com" <matt.timmermans@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 09:20 -0700
csiph-web