Re: On loss of integrity with xsl:script...

[Duane Nickull <webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> Hi.
> 
 
> If however, we had a script tag, that we could escape to for those marginal
> but essential tasks, might we not have exactly that, an escape. Something
> outside of XSL? In this way XSL could retain its "purity", and be
> implimented where needed in a robust, simple form, unadulterated, but still
> catering for expedience outside of the XSL language itself with the script
> tag.
> 
G'day Guy:

As you probably know, we are all for the script tag.  In a purely
theoretical standpoint, one would assume that XSLT addresses *just
about* anything one would ever want to do with XML data, however, my
frequent journey into new territory with using a draft in it's infancy
has left some of my earlier pages unfunctionable as the draft has been
changed.  

I am all for the inevitable inclusion of advanced programmatic abilities
in XSL.  Until that time happens, I believe that the <xsl:script> tag
will allow people using xsl in the real world today an opportunity to
use a stable language like Javascript for solutions without having to
worry about the possibility of future drafts not supporting syntax or
functions. 

Oh oh...  looks like you've woken up the XSL jihad.

Duane Nickull


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