Re: (dsssl) Re: The Future of DSSSL

["M. Wroth" <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'll second the concept ... although from a different perspective. I make 
fairly extensive uses of some SGML features that are not in XML.  So I 
"view with alarm" movements to make parsers XML specific.

I don't have any objection to support of XML, and indeed, a DSSSL engine 
that could deal with the full complexity of SGML _and_ XML would be a 
REALLY GOOD THING.

I can't comment on the technical feasibility, however :-)


At 10:51 AM 1/2/02 -0600, you wrote:
> >
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i
> In-Reply-To: <20020102131517.GA13743@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from Sebastian 
> Rahtz on Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 01:15:17PM +0000
> Sender: owner-dssslist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-To: dssslist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> X-MailLoop: 1
>
> Quoting Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 12:47:16PM +0100, Karl Eichwalder wrote:
> > > Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > >
> > > > arguments for the future of DSSSL are good and fine, but if they don't
> > > > encompass XML, they are evanescent vapours, IMHO.
> > >
> > > Not in my opinion.  "XML" will not make go away my legacy encoded SGML
> > > texts -- I just don't need namespaces.
> >
> > thats fine; all I am saying is that a modern parser needs to understand
> > XML and namespaces and schemas, as well as SGML and DTD.
> >
>    Yes, XML namespace and schemas support is needed.  However, if
> you're suggesting these should be added to SP/OpenSP, I'm not sure I
> agree.
>    Some minor modifications to SP to support basic XML parsing seem
> like a reasonable step, but SP is an *SGML* parser.  It has extensive
> support for a broad range of features that are utterly irrelevant to
> XML.  Conversely, there are *XML* parsers out there that support
> namespaces and schemas, which are utterly irrelevant to SGML.
>    So, why not build a DSSSL engine that can interface to multiple
> grove builders?  You can have an SP-based grove builder for SGML
> documents, and a grove builder based on an XML parser, complete with
> support for namespaces and schemas, for XML documents.
>    Doesn't this seem like a more attractive approach?
>
> -Brandon :)
>
>  DSSSList info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist

Mark B. Wroth
<mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


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