RE: XSLT vs JSP

["Joseph A. Latone" <jlatone@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think what's being talked about here is:
Should JSPs be represented as XML documents?

For now, I don't think they should because the only real
widely available standard tool for developers today for creating JSPs
is their favorite text editor, and using a text editor to create
XML-compliant JSPs given the things you can do in a JSP is
kind of a pain in the neck and not very productive.  The current
JSP specification is a matter of convenience.  When more XML editing tools
become available, then there's an obvious benefit of having a
JSP be XML compliant.  Having a JSP be a XML document today
would probably only benefit the people who are writing
JSP interpreters/engines, because then they could, for exmaple,
use a standard XML parser to process the JSP.

I don't think this point is lost on the folks specifying JSP,
and I think JSPs will probably be XML documents in the future
and the integration with XSL will be more clear, e.g., after your
JSP is run and your XML is created--since JSP can certainly
generate XML--how do you get the Web/JSP server to pass
the generated XML through XSL for final processing.

Anyway, it's all interesting & powerful stuff.
You can do a lot of this with ASP today especially since the
MS XML components are readily available in ASP and you can easily
build XML documents, transform them with XSL, and send the results
back to the client.  You can also do a lot of this today with the
various XML application servers, although I think they'll fall out
of favor given openness of the JSP architecture and the
equivalent power.

Joe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Steven Livingstone,
> ITS, SENM
> Sent: Sunday, June 27, 1999 2:43 AM
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: XSLT vs JSP
>
>
> 	>Second reason is output format.  JSP is primarily designed to
> output HTML
> 	>which is different enough from XML to be problematic.
>
> If JSP is like ASP, then I think you misunderstand their purpose. ASP is
> designed to integrate all areas of technology, including (in my
> case anyway)
> everything from COM objects to XML to produce what ever format
> you want (ASP
> can be used to output Excel, Word documents to name but a few).
> Now, I'm not
> sure how JSP and XML work together, but I have found great use in
> using ASP
> + Personalization COM object + XSL to produce a customized XML page.
>
> I don't know what techniques are available within XML itself to do this
> (none?), but I don't think that we should have XML etc... on one side and
> all of the other web technologies, such as COM on the other - I like the
> idea of using ASP to integrate them all.
>
> I won't bore you with the details, but if the XSL (or XML) page
> is parsed by
> the ASP engine, then the <%'s are interpreted as this is what the parser
> looks for - the <'s are ignored (at least that's what I have found).
> Otherwise all of the <'s in current ASP's would be interpreted also.
>
> I don't think ASP should *be* XML though - it isn't currently HTML. But
> then, I dynamically create my style sheets and not the XML docs, so there
> may be differences.
>
> Cheers
> Steven
>
> Steven Livingstone
> President, AIP Scotland.
> ceo@xxxxxxxxx
> http://www.citix.com
>
> Join Association of Internet Professionals - http://www.citix.com/aip
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Don Park [SMTP:donpark@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent:	27 June 1999 06:49
> > To:	xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject:	RE: XSLT vs JSP
> >
> > > I don't think it's silly at all and nothing like the
> > > analogies you give. My
> > > concern was that JSPs go 95% of the way towards being XML
> > > (with the benefits
> > > that brings) and then ruin any chance of that by using their
> > > own non-XML
> > > syntax extension.
> > > But if JSP has an XML encoding (of which I was not aware)
> > > then it makes me
> > > feel much better about it.
> >
> > While I don't think it is silly, XML developers should take care not to
> > fall
> > into 'everything should be XML' pitfall.  There are many reasons why JSP
> > is
> > so similar to XML yet fails to be XML completely.
> >
> > First reason is parsing speed.  It is easier and faster to search for <%
> > and
> > %> than to parse all the tags as in XML.
> >
> > Second reason is output format.  JSP is primarily designed to
> output HTML
> > which is different enough from XML to be problematic.  Forcing JSP to be
> > XML
> > also causes static parts of JSP to be XHTML.
> >
> > Third reason is ease of writing.  JSP can be created by simply copying
> > some
> > HTML fragments over and then adding some Java or JavaScript
> code.  If JSP
> > was XML then reserved characters (i.e. <, >, &) will have to be escaped
> > and
> > end tags have to be added (i.e. <p>).
> >
> > It is true that JSP can be XML but I don't think it should be
> XML.  Matter
> > fact, XML sucks in many ways.  For example, my son prefers Pokeymon over
> > XML.  Maybe if I change his middle name to XML, he might change his
> > opinion.
> > <g>
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Don Park
> > Docuverse
> >
> >
> >  XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
>
>
>  XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list