RE: Microsoft extensions to XSL (was RE: how to call Javascript function in .xsl file) function in .xsl file)

Subject: RE: Microsoft extensions to XSL (was RE: how to call Javascript function in .xsl file) function in .xsl file)
From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 20:32:14 -0500
Hi Ray,

This is, I think, a reasonnable proposition. So, for example, if the tag do
not has a "language" property it is, by default, ECMAScript which should
comes by default with all CSS/XML/XSL browser. If CSS/XML/XSL is used in an
intranet context or on a server, we then may want to use an other script
language. In that case, the tag should provide a way to specify which
language in a standard manner. Is this OK?

Didier PH Martin
mailto:martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.netfolder.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Ray Cromwell
> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 1998 6:44 PM
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Microsoft extensions to XSL (was RE: how to call Javascript
> function in .xsl file) function in .xsl file)
>
>
>
>
> For client side scripting on the browser, I think that not choosing
> a standard scripting language is a mistake. Sure, it's all well and
> nice that you can plug in whatever scripting language you want.
> But let's face facts -- web developers will use the language
> that has the greatest reach. If I am forced to download and
> install another plugin/COM object (and how do I do this crossplatform?),
> I will not visit that web page.
>
> For server side, it doesn't matter, but for anything on the client,
> I'd argue for making JavaScript and Java the defacto standards.
> Specifically, JavaScript.
>
>
> Sure, I love my perl, but I'd forgo the use of all my languages if
> I can depend on the end user being able to view my
> CSS/XSL/DHTML/JavaScript
> page on multiple platforms and browsers without regard to their local
> configuration.
>
> If instead, I tried to use client-side PerlScript in IE4/5, who could
> actually display my page? And what would be the advantage anyway?
>
>
> Isn't there an adage "things left unspecified have a way of specifying
> themselves?"  Why not spec ECMAScript as *required* for a conforming
> parser? There are even free implementations of ECMAScript in Java
> and C.
>
> My sincere wish is that 3 years from now, I can depend on DOM
> being the universal interface to HTML/XML, and every browser/OS
> has built in 100% compliant CSS/XSL/DOM/EcmaScript support.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  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