Re: Interactive XML

Subject: Re: Interactive XML
From: "Martin Bryan" <mtbryan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 10:52:29 +0100
Kent Fitch wrote:

>I agree with "dismally inadequate" - the escape to a "scripting language"
>is provided as a way to perform unanticipated processing to meet
>specialist needs (hopefully the common stuff will be provided in core
>XSL).  As such, the "scripting language" needs to be general purpose and
>powerful, including features programmers are now starting to take for
>granted such as exception handling, strong typing and inheritance.

Agreed, though whether "dismally" is true I am not so certain. But remember
that there is a fair amount you can do using ECMAScript that you could not
do using a basic presentation control language such as CSS2. Even this
limited addition would be better than nothing in XSL.

>Although some will argue that using a language such as Java will
>discourage casual script writers which may be happier with EcmaScript, I
>suggest that it is important that a widely understood and implemented
>language such as Java be at least a scripting option: JVM's will soon be
>everywhere - why not use them?

There also needs to be a mechanism for non-programmers to be able to control
the process.
ECMAScript could be enhanced to provide a useful halfway house between Java
and XSL, though at present I am uncertain it is adequate for forms control
as it has no input/output controls, which will be vital to link forms to
other applications.

Martin Bryan

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread