Re: Is DSSSL-O dead?

[Paul Prescod <papresco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Frank Boumphrey wrote:
> 
>     and I think the relevant phrase is "Real,
> honest-to-goodness-I-went-to-university-for-four-years computer
> programmers ", because they "know" how things are meant to be done, and when
> they come across a contrary idea, they take fright. My students were all
> newbies (and some of only average intelligence), but they had no problem
> with the concept of a "fully parenthesized prefix syntax" because they
> hadn't yet learnt it was "wrong".

The philosophy is that the more syntaxes a person has to learn the more
likely they are to rebel at the last one. Once they've learned XML and
JavaScript (two prerequisites for modern web design) they will feel more
comfortable using a language that combines them instead of one that
starts "from scratch" as it were.

Plus, there is certainly the computer programmer market to pander to.
They will implement DSSSL, write books on it, propose it to their
friends and so forth. For instance Sean Russell one of a very few XSL
implementors says he is one of these "Scheme-haters". Who knows if he
would have implemented XSL if it wasn't XML/ECMAscript based? His
implementation allows various languages to be "plugged in" (hurray!) but
he might not even have gotten interested enough to implement that much
if it weren't for the XML/ECMAScript version. Also, perhaps MS wouldn't
have implemented it if they couldn't reuse their ECMAScript interpreter
(did they? I don't know. but they certainly plan to reuse the ECMAScript
interpreter in IE 5.0 or 6.0!).

 Paul Prescod  - http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco

There are only two countries in the world that have not ratified the
United 
Nations convention on the rights of children: 
Somalia and the United States of America.  See: http://www.boes.org/


 DSSSList info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist