Re: Scheme Programming Reference

Subject: Re: Scheme Programming Reference
From: Paul Tyson <ptyso@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 01:05:38 -0500
Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> 
> Brandon Ibach writes:
>  >    What, I believe, is needed is a book that does for DSSSL what
>  > Goldfarb's "SGML Handbook" did for SGML.  It's actually a
> 
> what Goldfarb did for SGML, arguably, is put off 99% of the people
> who picked up that monstrous tome. I think its a terrible, unhelpful,
> offputting book. it typifies why SGML was such a huge marketing
> failure.
> 
> we need a *fun* book about DSSSL. and plenty of publishers would risk
> it, if anyone can write such a thing.
> 
I will argue it.  The "SGML Handbook" is and always will be the
definitive reference work on SGML.  It is painful to read other
expositions of structured documentation after you have experienced the
Handbook.  Although it's subject matter is much narrower, I place it
alongside Knuth's "The Art of Computer Programming", Abelson's and
Sussman's "The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs", and
Hofstadter's "Goedel, Escher, Bach" among the most elegant treatments of
computer topics.  That said, I admit it may not be immediately
accessible to those who prefer a "Dummies" introduction (although the
introductory tutorials are about as close as a self-respecting author
would care to get to a "Dummies" level).

Brandon and Sebastion are both right--we need more (any?) good material
on DSSSL, both definitive and elegant (like the "Handbook"), as well as
easy and pretty.  We were fortunate that the chief architect of SGML was
also quite literate.  I don't even know if there was a "chief architect"
of DSSSL, let alone what his or her literary inclinations are.  Maybe
someone can eventually stitch together the pieces of the DSSSL
Documentation project together to make a creditable book.  Better yet,
is there any chance someone can collect information from members of the
ISO working group that created DSSSL?  This, together with minutes and
records of the working group, would provide some fascinating background.

But there is also the hard question: how many people really can
understand and appreciate DSSSL, regardless of how it's presented?  It
involves some advanced and abstract concepts.  Can these be explained
simply and effectively?  I don't know.  Once you learn them, they are
deceptively simple, but far from self-apparent.  I myself would like
everyone to think in DSSSL for formatting and transforming documents,
but that is unrealistic to say the least.  It's like they say about
Unix--it's very user-friendly, just very particular who it's friends
are.

Paul Tyson


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


Current Thread