Matthew
>
> Paul Prescod wrote:
> >
> > On 28 Aug 1998 matt@veosystems.com wrote:
> >
> > The new XSL has no scripting. Extensibility is an item that they still
> > must decide upon -- scripting may reappear. I have been thinking recently
> > that they could leave all programmatic issues to a post proces. Then the
> > line between "behaviour sheets" and "style sheets" would be clear:
> > stylesheets do everything that can be done non-programmatically and
> > behaviour sheets will do the rest.
>
> Another possible view is that there is no "post process".
>
> The distinction between the rewriting and the scripting aspects of the earlier
> draft was short-sited and I welcomed its elimination from the current version.
> Since a rewriting system, in general, can be sufficiently powerful as to act
> as the basis for a general programming language, the distinction "behaviour"
> v/s "style" brings no inherent benefit.
>
> There are publications from several years back on constraint-based programming
> environments, (Wm Leler, ...Constraint Programming Languages...) which
> demonstrated this for term rewriting systems. Where the "styling" forms
> describe rewriting operations all the way to "machine code", there is no need
> for a "scripting" language.
>
> If you're curious, a quick search turned up what appears to be an active URL
> for him (http://wm.simplenet.com/wm/) and a pointer to a source for the
> language he described (http://www.cirl.uoregon.edu/constraints/systems/bertrand.html)