Subject: Re: XSL with scripting From: Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 10:23:06 +0000 |
Hi. I'm sorry but if the W3C persues the stance of simply ignoring flaming from the develpment community then I feel it's probably validated the chief frustration of most of the flamers. Under the current spec is it possible to address the original problem that gave rise to this thread, of producing alternating rows within a table using the current XSL spec without recourse to script? I believe the roiginal problem illustrated well need for flexible evaluation. We can determine index values of elements in relation to other elements, from there we need to be able to perform flexible eveluations upon this index, and upon the result take action. The problem as it stands is that declaritive models are very good at filtering data, but tend to be poor at actually *doing* anything based upon that data, for this reason, we *have* to be able to move to an imperitive model as needed. Now you can break the paradigm of XSL and make it a hybrid model, or you can keep XSL as pure as possible within the declaritive mould and allow people to move to ECMAScript as needed. And if you find a lack of copious amounts of source it's because some of us are busy meeting schedules out in the market-place rather than accademic institutions or research labs. I also don't think provision of source is a valid reason for exclusion from discussion on the list, and stating such as a requirement for reply is a little high-handed IMHO. Cheers Guy. xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 12/23/98 04:47:18 PM To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cc: (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID) Subject: Re: XSL with scripting Oren Ben-Kiki wrote: > > Flow Simulation <info@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >Now we have seen the latest XSL draft, and scripting hasn't reappeared. > >I think this one would be a simple yes/no. ... > No, it isn't a simple question at all. Quite so. Extensibility (whether in the form of scripting or something else) will get into XSL if and when the XSL WG reaches consensus on a mechanism for providing extensibility. Flaming the W3C process may be a lot of fun but it won't help get extensibility into XSL. The way to help get extensibility into XSL is to provide useful, constructive input to the XSL WG that assists it in coming up with a design that it can reach consensus on. At this stage, the kind of input I would find most useful would be a representative selection of transformation problems that can't be solved using the current XSL WD and that one might reasonably expect to be able to solve with an extensibility mechanism. (If anybody steps up to this, please supply actual source and result XML documents so that there's no doubt exactly what the problem is.) James 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: XSL with scripting, James Clark | Thread | RE: XSL with scripting, Pawson, David |
XSL newbie needs help., anette . engel | Date | Re: XSL with scripting, James Clark |
Month |