- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:54:44 -0400
- To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Cc: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, www-tag@w3.org
On Thu, 2003-10-23 at 13:29, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > At 11:23 AM -0400 10/23/03, Champion, Mike wrote: > > > >Web-related tools such as DOM, SOAP, Xinclude, etc. How about XSLT? It is > >most definitely an important part of the Web as I understand the term, but > >most definitely not defined at the level of concrete syntax. > > I like XSLT, but is it it a coincidence that XSLT in general is not > exchanged on the Web today? No, it's not a coincidence; it's not even true. cf W3C XSLT Service http://www.w3.org/2001/05/xslt and stuff like http://udell.roninhouse.com/bytecols/2002-03-27.html Now there's a "principle of least power" that argues against turing-complete languages when you can help it. But there are a few deployed turing-complete (mobile code) formats: Java bytecodes, javascript, and XSLT. These are perhaps less widely deployed than XHTML and the like, and they have a few additional risks, but architecturally, they're not any less part of the web. > Instead it is processed locally on the > server side. In practice, XSLT is as or more unreliable when > delivered to clients than JavaScript and DOM. I used to think this > was purely because of bad implementations, but now I'm not so sure. > Perhaps the problems that plague client side XSLT are endemic to any > effort to exchange a data model instead of syntax. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 23 October 2003 15:54:13 UTC