Re: About xsl:scripts

Subject: Re: About xsl:scripts
From: Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 16:08:37 +0100
Hi Simon.

Related to the problems Amit has been having trying to script from within
the MS XSL scripting environment, surely all MS has to do is expose the IIS
COM interfaces to their XSL scripting environment and then MS XSL is on a
par with ASP. It seems that when compared with other MS scripting
environments MS XSL is cut off at the knees (doesn't appear to have the
same access to COM), I can't see why MS wouldn't correct this other than
perhaps to stop XSL from competing with ASP.

The moment you throw in Request.QueryString(...) the need for ASP starts to
diminish as a general Web tool, add to that DB COM interfaces and I know
what I'd rather use.

Whether MS decide to do this or not remains to be seen. All it would
require is for the likes of Object Design to include server-side XSL
processing with COM enabled scripting in eXcelon v2 to force the hand of
MS. If such happened I might still want MTS, but I suddenly have options.

I also argued a while back that XSL had to have scripting for exactly these
reasons. Certainly for the type of intra/extranet application development
I'm involved with, without COM enabled scripting from within XSL, XSL can
only be seen as a partialy complete tool. Yes we can hope for XQL, and
standardised querying mechanism for use with XML, but this area is *not*
going to standardise any time soon. I fear that we must endure a plethora
of proprietry mechanism loosly based on XSL pattern matching, before we
come out the other side. Allowing scripting from within XSL might not be an
ideal long term solution, but it does provide an expedient short term
solution until the issue boils down to a conrete, standard set of


xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 04/14/99 06:07:21 PM

To:   xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc:    (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID)
Subject:  Re: About xsl:scripts

At 10:58 AM 4/14/99 +0100, Guy Murphy wrote:
>I've maintained from the start that XSL is a direct competitor for ASP.
>reason why I assert this is because of the speed with which I was willing
>to bail out from heavy usage of ASP to using XSL, leaving ASP just as the
Maybe, though I think they'd have to give XSL access to all the ASP objects
(for form interaction and all that) to make XSL do all the work ASP can do.
 Maybe that's a direction they're headed, in which case we'll definitely
have MS-XSL to contend with, but I suspect they'll be leaving ASP as the
framework and XSL as part of the toolkit.
(That's how I'm presenting it in an upcoming ASP book, anyway, but MS has
been known to change directions on a regular basis.)
Simon St.Laurent
XML: A Primer
Sharing Bandwidth / Cookies

 XSL-List info and archive:

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread