Re: XML vrs SGML tools [was Re: Capitalizing on HTML (was ...)]
Len Bullar wrote:
> Matthew Fuchs wrote:
> > On the writer side, the writer only need learn HTML and can have a
> > fair idea of what the document will look like (esp. when there is only
> > one main browser available). But with SGML/XML, the writer must both
> > find an appropriate doctype and an appropriate style sheet, or develop
> > them. This can be, in and of itself, as difficult as developing HTML
> > and a browser from scratch.
> What we found was they shared the stylesheets. Look at Jon Bosak, et
> DSSSL stylesheet for HTML in Jade. Once written, it becomes a tweaking
> process. Moreover, since the vast majority of documents are of the
> "box in a box in a box" variety, it is typically easy to adapt one
> stylesheet of that variety to another. Reuse is actually quite high
> in SGML stylesheets. This is exactly the same problem as using
> textures and materials in animation (VRML, etc). This gets solved by
> freebie sites and low cost CD-ROM distribution.
Oh, I don't doubt it and it couldn't be any other way - not everyone
can rewrite the Web everytime they need a slightly different document
- I was referring to the "worst case". In fact, the Web is pretty
much an example of that (shared DTD and mostly tweaking of 1
[Mosaic/Netscape] stylesheet). My point was that XML will not
automatically make SGML as simple as HTML for either the browser or
document writer. There needs to be a compelling reason to develop a
new DTD/stylesheet, which doesn't exist for Joe Homepage, after which
easy distribution can enter the picture. I think SGML will eventually
push aside HTML for most Net applications.
I don't speak for Disney, and this message was probably forged, anyway.