Re: Style vs. Transformation

Subject: Re: Style vs. Transformation
From: Paul Prescod <papresco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 21:12:08 -0500
Jacques Deseyne wrote:
> Yes, of course, this is one possible official answer, but the intention
> of my question was more down to earth, to learn if somebody had
> been occupied to demonstrate that the SGML flow objects
> approach in Jade is (e.g., Turing) complete.

I don't understand your question. I know how to mathematically prove
completeness, but I don't know how to demonstrate it. Jade is Turing
complete (or as Turing complete as anything else that runs on finite
hardware) and thus can compute anything. The set of flow objects it
provides are enough to create all of the elements in an SGML document
(but not DTD markup, or insignificant whitespace etc.)
> In Paul's enthusiastic argument, (presumably due to my level
> of awareness) I failed to see the distinction between the style
> language as in ISO/IEC 10743 and as implemented by Jade.

Right. Jade has SGML-specific flow objects. Both are Turing complete.

Paul Prescod  -

[Woody Allen on Hollywood in "Annie Hall"]
Annie: "It's so clean down here."
Woody: "That's because they don't throw their garbage away. They make 
        it into television shows."

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread