Re: (dsssl) Re: The Future of DSSSL

[Brandon Ibach <bibach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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