Subject: RE: XSLT vs JSP
From: "Steven Livingstone, ITS, SENM" <steven.livingstone@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 10:42:36 +0100
	>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.


Steven Livingstone
President, AIP Scotland.

Join Association of Internet Professionals -

> -----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
> 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:

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread