W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > November 1996


From: Len Bullard <cbullard@HiWAAY.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 09:37:20 -0600
Message-ID: <3299BD30.4A35@HiWAAY.net>
To: Jon Bosak <bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM>
CC: papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca, tbray@textuality.com, w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Jon Bosak wrote:

> Personally, I think that the only strategy that makes sense here is
> the full frontal attack: enable dsssl-o processing through plug-ins or
> applets and insist that real XML browsers are browsers with dsssl-o
> capabilities.  

DSSSL is powerful.  JADE is a good thing to have.  Why would 
XML of necessity, (meaning, a requirement for conformance) 
require DSSSL?  If simplicity is a goal, there are simpler ways 
to create stylesheets than DSSSL.  Remember, I am not arguing 
against DSSSL or it's power, but I am asking why a "RealXML browser"
use it.  That sounds like the sort of legal beagle trick that 
forces a system solution rather than enabling the vendor 
and the market to choose.  The result will be to isolate 
XML, or tools, or certain vendors.  Isolation leads to 
war quicker than a free trade zone.

DSSSL must sell itself.  If there is a compelling need and 
only one *obvious* solution, why is that a problem?  The 
Technical Corrigendum and alignment made it possible to 
develop systems that can use the SGML standards family without 
conflicts, but it doesn't force that.  XML is in a much 
weaker position to attempt to force that.

Anyway, aren't hyperlinks the next scheduled task?

len bullard
Received on Monday, 25 November 1996 10:37:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:20 UTC