Subject: Re: Proposal: (node ...) construction rule type From: Paul Prescod <papresco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 15:00:23 -0400 |
David Megginson wrote: > > James has other DSSSL extensions. As long as he can accept a standard > > stylesheet Jade would be DSSSL compliant. > > Yes, but all of Jame's other extensions can be declared in > DSSSL-compliant ways, using 'external-procedure', > 'declare-characteristic', or 'declare-flow-object'. There is no > corresponding 'declare-construction-rule' procedure in DSSSL. I don't > know how much of a problem that might be for James. I see your point about the scope of extensions. > With Jade, at least, it's almost trivial -- SP is already providing > all of the required information (although optimising the character > handling would take a bit of work). From what I've seen, anything > based on NXP should have no problem either. I can't see how any implementation that allows you to iterate through nodes manually (node-list-first, node-list-rest, etc.) could have a problem implementing with this. Paul Prescod DSSSList info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Proposal: (node ...) constructi, David Megginson | Thread | Re: Proposal: (node ...) constructi, Lassi A. Tuura |
Re: Proposal: (node ...) constructi, David Megginson | Date | Re: Proposal: (node ...) constructi, Lassi A. Tuura |
Month |