W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-xml@w3.org > January 2011

Re: The interpretation of script

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:48:44 -0500
To: public-html-xml@w3.org
Message-ID: <m262tn42wz.fsf@nwalsh.com>
John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> writes:
> Norman Walsh scripsit:
>> In principle, there's no reasy why the browser couldn't equally
>> execute application/xslt+xml or application/xproc+xml or
>> application/normslanguage content.
>
> I think this is more of a theoretical than a practical problem.  Despite
> the code/data duality of XML (and Lisp), we typically know whether a given
> piece of text is code or data.  The underpinnings of the xqib system know
> that browsers treat application/xquery as inert data, but they make it
> their job to give it an interpretation as a script.  If you don't want
> your XQuery interpreted as a script, give it a media type of text/plain.

I think the implication is that text/javascript is the only type of
script that will ever execute automatically. Even if we totally
replace JavaScript with some new language in 20 years, we'll still
have to shim it in place with JavaScript.

That's not an impractical solution, I guess, though it strikes me as
an inelegant one.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
www.marklogic.com

Received on Monday, 17 January 2011 21:49:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 17 January 2011 21:49:23 GMT