Re: alternating tags in a list?

[Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx]

Hi.

That's one way of looking at it, except that I'm adocating a broadening of
choice not a narrowing of choice. I'm also not advocating ECMAScript for
things XSL can't do, but hopefuly ECMAScript for things XSL *can* do by the
final spec, simply acknowledging that there will be a learning curve, and
individual preferences in apporach, and escaping to script facilitates
that. Presumably also, script within XSL, such as that in the MS XSL
implimentation can draw upon custom methods within the scope of a template,
that wont be easily available/achievable from the DOM after.

In short, more choice, not less.

Cheers
     Guy.




xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 12/15/98 09:27:34 PM

To:   xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc:    (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID)
Subject:  Re: alternating tags in a list?




---Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I agree whole heartedly. Extrapolating the arguement of we don't
need to
> impliment that in XSL because you can do it with DOM elsewhere would
> quickly paint XSL into a corner considering that we can do
everything that
> XSL will do with the DOM elsewhere. In which case why do we need XSL.
>
> "We can do it with the DOM elsewhere" isn't isn't a valid arguement
for not
> doing something in XSL. The point of XSL should surely be that it be
an
> ideal language for transforming and rendering XML, if you point to
> something else to use instead then you've shot XSL in the head.
>
> Now I am in favour of XSL, I am in favour of finding solutions for XSL
> performing tasks like alternating tags etc.
>
> I am also in favour of allowing access to ECMAScript where
available, I
> don't see why developers should be prohibited from esaping to
ECMAScript if
> it's their prefered option because of a virtuous ideal. This also
allows
> people to approach the learning curve of XSL in a gentler manner when
> comming from procedural backgrounds.
What's the difference between "do it with DOM elsewhere" and "escaping
to ECMAScript"?  Don't both of these just allow you to do things that
XSL wouldn't allow you to?  Making ECMAScript _the_ choice for XSL
somehow seems wrong.  Couldn't you use ECMAScript on your XML after
XSL is done with it to do those little extras you couldn't get done in
XSL?
Toivo Lainevool
tlainevool@xxxxxxx
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

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






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