Subject: Re: XSL with scripting From: Paul Prescod <paul@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 08:33:31 -0600 |
I believe that these paragraphs contradict each other: Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > Hi. > > If ECMAScript where included in the XSL spec there would be no need for you > to learn another language, you could simply ignore the scripting and stick > with the XSL. From what I can see the only thing being suggested by > proponents of scripting within XSL is that it be there as an escape hatch > for those who feel it necessary, not that it should replace or indeed even > address any of the functional goals of XSL. So this need not effect you. > ... > And if your concern is the adultaration of a simple declaritive style > language, I would suggest that by the time XSL has been stretched to > encompass all the possible occurances that occur infrequently, that could > be left to a scripting language, your XSL sill loose all of it's original > simplicity and elegance. Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco "In spite of everything I still believe that people are basically good at heart." - Anne Frank XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: XSL with scripting, Guy_Murphy | Thread | Re: XSL with scripting, Brandon Ibach |
Re: MSIE5b2 compliance with latest , G. Ken Holman | Date | Re: Why XT doesn't use the DOM, Paul Prescod |
Month |