Subject: CSS + behavior vs. XSL (was: EcmaScript, gone?) From: "Jelks Cabaniss" <jelks@xxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 12:08:04 -0400 |
Paul Prescod wrote: > I agree that the system must be made extensible somehow. I was never > comfortable with the sprinkling of Javascript syntax, and the new XSL > makes me think that we may be able to get away without it. As you probably > know, there is a stylesheet-related concept called a "behaviour sheet." > What if we allow "behaviour sheets" to modify the XML tree before it is > displayed. Then the Javascript code would be nicely segmented and executed > completely separately. XSL would remain completely declarative (like > pre-Javascript HTML), but the fundamental flexiblity would be available > (like post-DOM web pages). I thought the original impetus behind XSL was to take it "beyond CSS" by adding scripting. So if XSL is to be declarative, why not utilize the *much* more straight-forward and declarative Cascading Style Sheets, and use -- as you suggest -- "behavior sheets" for processing? Or is there such an overwhelming urge in the current all-is-XML fever to reinvent CSS (not to mention COBOL, C++, Postscript, Java, ...) in XML that we have to thrash about for who knows how long in designing a new (essentially) CSS syntax? CSS is not only a full Recommendation, it's now a *Level 2* full Recommendation! XSL 1.0 will be ready when? June/July '99 at the earliest? Just what is it that XSL will do that CSS + behavior (or CSS + DOM) can't, other than say "Hey, I'm way k3wl because I'm expressible in XML and similar to Xpointer!"? Something to think about anyway. /Jelks XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[no subject], James Tauber | Thread | Re: CSS + behavior vs. XSL (was: E, Paul Prescod |
[no subject], James Tauber | Date | Re: 2.6 patterns: let's try variati, Scott Lawton |
Month |