[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Microsoft extensions to XSL (was RE: how to call Javasc

Subject: RE: Microsoft extensions to XSL (was RE: how to call Javascript function in .xsl file) function in .xsl file)
From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 20:32:14 -0500
javasc
Hi Ray,

This is, I think, a reasonnable proposition. So, for example, if the tag do
not has a "language" property it is, by default, ECMAScript which should
comes by default with all CSS/XML/XSL browser. If CSS/XML/XSL is used in an
intranet context or on a server, we then may want to use an other script
language. In that case, the tag should provide a way to specify which
language in a standard manner. Is this OK?

Didier PH Martin
mailto:martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.netfolder.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Ray Cromwell
> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 1998 6:44 PM
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Microsoft extensions to XSL (was RE: how to call Javascript
> function in .xsl file) function in .xsl file)
>
>
>
>
> For client side scripting on the browser, I think that not choosing
> a standard scripting language is a mistake. Sure, it's all well and
> nice that you can plug in whatever scripting language you want.
> But let's face facts -- web developers will use the language
> that has the greatest reach. If I am forced to download and
> install another plugin/COM object (and how do I do this crossplatform?),
> I will not visit that web page.
>
> For server side, it doesn't matter, but for anything on the client,
> I'd argue for making JavaScript and Java the defacto standards.
> Specifically, JavaScript.
>
>
> Sure, I love my perl, but I'd forgo the use of all my languages if
> I can depend on the end user being able to view my
> CSS/XSL/DHTML/JavaScript
> page on multiple platforms and browsers without regard to their local
> configuration.
>
> If instead, I tried to use client-side PerlScript in IE4/5, who could
> actually display my page? And what would be the advantage anyway?
>
>
> Isn't there an adage "things left unspecified have a way of specifying
> themselves?"  Why not spec ECMAScript as *required* for a conforming
> parser? There are even free implementations of ECMAScript in Java
> and C.
>
> My sincere wish is that 3 years from now, I can depend on DOM
> being the universal interface to HTML/XML, and every browser/OS
> has built in 100% compliant CSS/XSL/DOM/EcmaScript support.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  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

PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!

Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.