RE: XML Processing instruction proposal

["Didier PH Martin" <martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Peter,

<YourComment>
But when you say that the medium "screen, html" is equivalent Jade's
option "-t sgml", you imply that the nonstandard flow objects for SGML
transformation (document-type, element, empty-element etc.) that Jade
implements should be the default set of flow objects (right?).
</YourComment>

<Reply>
Not exactly, the default browser medium is set to media="screen" and it is
equivalent to jade's option "-t html" and all the formatting object are
usual dsssl formatting object mapped to HTML and CSS. When the PI is set to
media="screen,html", then it is equivalent to jade's option "-t sgml" but
the output is considered, in that case as a specific SGML application: the
HTML. But, to indicating the output type in the media property allows the
browser to know that it can use its HTML formatting objects for rendition.
If the media is set to media="screen, sgml" then it is also equivalent to
Jade's option "-t sgml" but this time the output is an unknown sgml
application. the browser will then display the result as text because it
cannot render that with HTML FOs.
</Reply>

<YourComment>
And what I tried to say is that the default medium should be "screen" (a
graphical
color display), but the default flow objects should be them specified in
DSSSLO (a subset of the DSSSL flow objects). The reason is that they are
standardized and provide a simple way to specify the formatting of a
document without going through HTML.
</YourComment>

<Reply>
I agree, it is in the same vein as the proposal.
</Reply>

> <YourComment>
But as I understand it, the media pseudo-attribute is used to choose
between different style sheets for different media. But the output format
is irrelevant in choosing the style sheet. For instance, you wouldn't have
to make one style sheet for generating RTF, another for PDF and a third
for TeX. The flow objects are the same (paragraph, table, line-field
etc.). Then the output format shouldn't be specified as a "medium", with
one exception coming up to mind: SGML transformation, because it uses
another set of flow objects or even the DSSSL transformation language.
</YourComment>

<Reply>
you can use the same stylesheet for different output format and let the
browser know about that with a declaration like:

<?xml-stylesheet href="myscript.dsl" type="text/dsssl" media="screen,rtf"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="myscript.dsl" type="text/dsssl" media="screen,pdf"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="myscript.dsl" type="text/dsssl" media="screen,tex"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="myscript.dsl" type="text/dsssl" media="screen"?>

All PIs are pointing to the same stylesheet by the browswer knows that we
need to provide a choice among for different renditions for this document.
The browser can then show a memu to let the user choose. You are right to
say that FO could be the same for all these formats. However, if we want to
fine tune the output, it is also possible to have a different stylesheet for
each format to better use their features (not all rendition format are
created equal). Nonetheless, you can use the same style sheet for all these
output formats. You just gained versatility. So, yes, in fact I would need
more something like:
<?xml-stylesheet href="myscript.dsl" type="text/dsssl" media="print,rtf"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="myscript.dsl" type="text/dsssl" media="screen"?>
using HTML+CSS output.
or
<?xml-stylesheet href="myscript.dsl" type="text/dsssl" media="screen,html"?>
using James SGML extensions.
<?xml-stylesheet href="myscript.dsl" type="text/dsssl" media="print,pdf"?>
</Reply>

Regards
Didier PH Martin
mailto:martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.netfolder.com


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