Subject: Re: alternating tags in a list? From: Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 17:01:35 +0000 |
Hi. That's one way of looking at it, except that I'm adocating a broadening of choice not a narrowing of choice. I'm also not advocating ECMAScript for things XSL can't do, but hopefuly ECMAScript for things XSL *can* do by the final spec, simply acknowledging that there will be a learning curve, and individual preferences in apporach, and escaping to script facilitates that. Presumably also, script within XSL, such as that in the MS XSL implimentation can draw upon custom methods within the scope of a template, that wont be easily available/achievable from the DOM after. In short, more choice, not less. Cheers Guy. xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 12/15/98 09:27:34 PM To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cc: (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID) Subject: Re: alternating tags in a list? ---Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > I agree whole heartedly. Extrapolating the arguement of we don't need to > impliment that in XSL because you can do it with DOM elsewhere would > quickly paint XSL into a corner considering that we can do everything that > XSL will do with the DOM elsewhere. In which case why do we need XSL. > > "We can do it with the DOM elsewhere" isn't isn't a valid arguement for not > doing something in XSL. The point of XSL should surely be that it be an > ideal language for transforming and rendering XML, if you point to > something else to use instead then you've shot XSL in the head. > > Now I am in favour of XSL, I am in favour of finding solutions for XSL > performing tasks like alternating tags etc. > > I am also in favour of allowing access to ECMAScript where available, I > don't see why developers should be prohibited from esaping to ECMAScript if > it's their prefered option because of a virtuous ideal. This also allows > people to approach the learning curve of XSL in a gentler manner when > comming from procedural backgrounds. What's the difference between "do it with DOM elsewhere" and "escaping to ECMAScript"? Don't both of these just allow you to do things that XSL wouldn't allow you to? Making ECMAScript _the_ choice for XSL somehow seems wrong. Couldn't you use ECMAScript on your XML after XSL is done with it to do those little extras you couldn't get done in XSL? Toivo Lainevool tlainevool@xxxxxxx _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com 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: alternating tags in a list?, Vun Kannon, David | Thread | Re: alternating tags in a list?, Guy_Murphy |
Re: syntax feedback, Tony Graham | Date | RE: syntax feedback, Didier PH Martin |
Month |