Subject: Re: <xsl-script> From: Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 10:38:32 +0100 |
Hi Dave. I must admit that the capabilities you outline bellow would be exciting. To be honest is was your referal to shades of ASP that really caught my attention. I'm not sure whether it would be a good idea yet or not, but it certainly sounds interesting. Wouldn't it be best however to standardise on ECMAScript however? Otherwise one can't be sure of the script parser on the target platform. Cheers Guy xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 05/11/99 08:48:21 PM To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cc: (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID) Subject: <xsl-script> [SNIP] I personally think <script> ought to be in XML itself - I can imagine using it to allow a document to convey (via it's DTD for example) how a receiving processor is supposed to manipulate it. Very object oriented. Shades of Active Server Pages even. Conversely, imagine an XSL stylesheet who's document is a script that knows how to go out and get the data it's supposed to present - for example a list of stocks one is interested in. The whole idea of "intelligent content" seems to me to be one of the bright potentials of the X*L family of notations... if they include a means of adding "intelligence" to a document. No offense meant to anyone... Dave LeBlanc XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: <xsl-script>, Paul Prescod | Thread | RE: <xsl-script>, Linda van den Brink |
Re: <xsl-script>, Paul Prescod | Date | XSL processor speed ?, Sebastien Sahuc |
Month |