Subject: Re: Interactive XML From: "Martin Bryan" <mtbryan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 10:52:29 +0100 |
Kent Fitch wrote: >I agree with "dismally inadequate" - the escape to a "scripting language" >is provided as a way to perform unanticipated processing to meet >specialist needs (hopefully the common stuff will be provided in core >XSL). As such, the "scripting language" needs to be general purpose and >powerful, including features programmers are now starting to take for >granted such as exception handling, strong typing and inheritance. Agreed, though whether "dismally" is true I am not so certain. But remember that there is a fair amount you can do using ECMAScript that you could not do using a basic presentation control language such as CSS2. Even this limited addition would be better than nothing in XSL. >Although some will argue that using a language such as Java will >discourage casual script writers which may be happier with EcmaScript, I >suggest that it is important that a widely understood and implemented >language such as Java be at least a scripting option: JVM's will soon be >everywhere - why not use them? There also needs to be a mechanism for non-programmers to be able to control the process. ECMAScript could be enhanced to provide a useful halfway house between Java and XSL, though at present I am uncertain it is adequate for forms control as it has no input/output controls, which will be vital to link forms to other applications. Martin Bryan XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Interactive XML, Paul Prescod | Thread | Re: Interactive XML, Paul Prescod |
How to do XML to XML translation, Stefan Trcek | Date | How can I get real path ?, Benoît BARRE |
Month |