Subject: Re: About xsl:scripts From: Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 10:58:29 +0100 |
Hi. I've maintained from the start that XSL is a direct competitor for ASP. The reason why I assert this is because of the speed with which I was willing to bail out from heavy usage of ASP to using XSL, leaving ASP just as the glue. If I could as you suggest access and COM interfaces from XSL then I would look at dropping ASP completely. I'm not 100% sure as to the state of play with script within the MS XSL parser, as I haven't had chance to play with it fully. It doesn't however seem to be on a par with the IE, or IIS scripting hosts. As to whether these moves are deliberate on the part of MS, or the result of simple expedience with what has to be seen as an interim solution for MS with regard to XSL (pretty much as XML was in IE4) ::shrug:: time will tell... is MS ready to throw ASP away?... I hope so :) Cheers Guy. xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 04/14/99 04:26:48 AM To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cc: (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID) Subject: About xsl:scripts [SNIP] After thinking more about this I think that probably this is because, in certain ways XSL could compete with ASP and Microsoft do not want to create a competitor to ASP. [SNIP] regards Didier PH Martin mailto:martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.netfolder.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: About xsl:scripts, Didier PH Martin | Thread | Re: About xsl:scripts, Simon St.Laurent |
RE: Grand Unification Theory (XSL/X, Guy_Murphy | Date | Re: Problem instantiating XMLDOMDoc, Amit Rekhi |
Month |