Re: On loss of integrity with xsl:script...

Subject: Re: On loss of integrity with xsl:script...
From: Duane Nickull <webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 11:06:05 -0700
G'day Rick:

Rick Geimer wrote:

> However, I would prefer a standardized programatic approach instead of an "add
> your language here" script tag, if only for the sake of consitency. If this
> means loosing granularity and validation, so be it. 

I agree this is will happen in an ideal world.  In the interm, we still
need a more stable language to use while XSLT grows.  One of our major
problems is how to finalize the development of web based applications
which will be viewed with a commercial browser today. No browser at this
point in time fully supports all the functions available to designers
via XSLT.  While we wait for this process to complete, it is comforting
to have access to familiar tools like javascript.  While we klodge away
at code in JS, it helps define the future needs of the XSLT spec based
on real world applications.

I would hate to have to
> debug XSLT stylesheets that could have scripts in 10 different languages
> embedded within them. Just imagine the cross platform problems that could arise
> when you need to develop on NT but go into production on Solaris? 

That's a scary thought!

XSLT needs to
> be functional, portable, and consistent if it is to achieve success in the
> corporate environment.
Agreed!  It also needs to be powerful.  

Duane Nickull

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread