RE: Interactive XML

[JLemire@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

I believe Microsoft's implementation for Win32 platforms is...

try looking at http://www.microsoft.com/scripting for their JScript engine
component and samples of how to build an application to host it (or any
other script engine written to their script engine interface).  Their
JScript engine supports a superset of ECMAScript with nice extensions like
exception handling.  I haven't ever written an application that host script
engines written to their interface but from what I've read it's easy for the
host to inject objects into the engines namespace and easy to switch engines
if you decide you don't like the script language.  They have JScript and
vbscript and third parties have built perl, python, rexx, tcl...

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Peter Murray-Rust [SMTP:peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent:	Wednesday, July 01, 1998 1:51 PM
> To:	xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject:	Re: Interactive XML
> 
> At 00:15 01/07/98 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote:
> >Thats an interesting use of the word portable.
> >
> >Even if the languages are extended to two - ECMAScript and Java 1.2, say
> >- that doubles the implementation load for anyone writing a conformant
> >implementation. Or alternatively, it requires softening the conformance
> 
> I use java because it is platform-independent (and can be run with or
> without a browser). Is ECMAScript available in standalone form (i.e.
> without a browser)? If so, I may come to learn to love it - if not, it
> makes standalone XSL impossible which is a serious drawback.
> 
> 	P.
> 
> Peter Murray-Rust, Director Virtual School of Molecular Sciences, domestic
> net connection
> VSMS http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/vsms, Virtual Hyperglossary
> http://www.venus.co.uk/vhg
> 
> 
>  XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list