Subject: Re: (dsssl) Re: The Future of DSSSL From: Brandon Ibach <bibach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 10:51:54 -0600 |
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
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
(dsssl) Re: The Future of DSSSL, Sebastian Rahtz | Thread | Re: (dsssl) Re: The Future of DSSSL, Sebastian Rahtz |
Re: (dsssl) Re: The Future of DSSSL, Sebastian Rahtz | Date | Re: (dsssl) Re: The Future of DSSSL, Sebastian Rahtz |
Month |