[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date]

Re: Observation


Subject: Re: Observation
From: Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 10:29:51 +0000

Hi.

I think your point is certainly a major reason, as there aren't many user
agents yes doing anything useful with FOs, so there really isn't any point
using them. Also I think that simply alot of people are comming to XSL with
existing implimentation goals and solutions, many of these being ASP or
ASP-like. Certainly that is the case with me. I never liked doing large
amounts or mark-up with ASP. I might just be slack but during the course of
development the temptation was to move ever more away from a template and
further into large scripted applications. At the end of develpment the
danger was winding up with a large scripted app running on the server.

IMHO script is not suited to this, so I am more than happy to embrace XSL.
I'm just winding up a proof-of-concept application presenting the complete
Bible in IE5b2, with special attention to linking and navigation. It
invloves a fraction of the code doing it in ASP would have brought, and I
personally feel is far easier to understand comming to it cold.

Cheers
     Guy.





xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 01/27/99 01:32:20 AM

To:   xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc:    (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID)
Subject:  Observation




Hi,
After lurking for a while on this list I observed that a majority of
scripts
showed in message did not used the <rule.... construct which use Flow
objects. Instead most of them where more like templates like ASP or
frontier5. Is it because Flow objects are too restrictive? Just curious to
know. Comments?
Didier PH Martin
mailto:martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.netfolder.com

 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
Keywords
xsl