Subject: RE: emitting comments From: "Frank A. Christoph" <christo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 11:32:55 +0900 |
David Carlisle wrote: > > Is this a bug or a feature? > > feature. > > The first thing that happens to a dsssl script is that it is parsed as > SGML so <!-- ... is a comment. If you want to put the characters <!-- > into a string then you can either concatenate two strings, as you did, > or use character entities rather than literal character data, so the > parser sees them as character data rather than markup. I think it is a misfeature. It confuses people more often than not. Matthias Clasen wrote: > And a small advantage of dsssl over xsl is that you can derive a dtd > for your style-sheets from the dsssl architecture which uses cdata declared > content for the style-specification-body to avoid the whole problem. > xml doesn't allow that. Or is this impossible for some reason ? At least XSL is consistent on the syntax issue, although I find it almost impossible to read. David Carlisle wrote: > Yes, you can, but what has never really been clear to me was _why_ dsssl > was defined as an sgml application rather than a lisp-ish one. > I know that as defined some of the top level forms require SGML notation Which ones are you talking about? > But would it have been impossible for those to have used lisp syntax > too? What was the overriding reason for having dsssl as an sgml > architecture at all? What, didn't you know? Everything in the world must be reduced to SGML or it's not useful. No one disputes the idea that Scheme needs a module system, but doing it via SGML is like using a hockey stick to bat a baseball. --FC DSSSList info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: emitting comments, Matthias Clasen | Thread | Re: emitting comments, Holger Klawitter |
Re: emitting comments, David Carlisle | Date | Re: emitting comments, Carlos Villegas |
Month |