Re: Interactive XML

["Mitch C. Amiano" <amiamc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Could you elaborate on your criticism of ECMAScript?

IMHO, ECMAScript is a good scripting language, at least as good
as some of the commercial offerings I've had the pleasure (or displeasure)
to work with (including a number of relational application environments).
I'm currently using a fairly plain subset of _javascript_, with Netscapisms,
to achieve some very useful results. Admittedly, the user interface features
are somewhat limited by the existing set of HTML based form elements, but
this has little to do with the language.

While it is true that ECMAScript syntax alone does not provide
facilities such as network communication and event triggers, these
types of facilties are typically part of the host interface and a
characteristic of the type of applications being developed. That the
form and function of such facilities would need to be debated and
agreed upon for an open standard, is obvious. That ECMAScript is
a poor choice because it does not itself specify or standardize these
facilities, is not obvious.

Pawson, David wrote:

> Picking up on one point in this thread,
are you guys happy having ecmascript as the available tool
for basic processing?

It is dismally inadequate for our needs here, has no one else
picked up on this? Any sort of forms processing will surely need
more than ecmascript?

Curious, DaveP

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

--
Mitch C. Amiano