[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: XML vrs SGML tools [was Re: Capitalizing on HTML (was ...)]]]



[Derek Denny-Brown <derdb@techno.com>:]

| XML on its own does not solve the browser problem.  The browser
| writers are still faced with the problem of style sheets.

True.

| The reason there are so many cheap HTML browsers is because it is
| _very_ easy to figure out how to display HTML (well, for the most
| part).  DSSSL may solve the problem, but it solves it in a rather
| difficult to understand and implement way.  XML will be an easy sell
| to browser writers if it comes packaged with a useful but simple
| style-sheet mechanism.  DSSSL might work, if someone would write a
| good book about it, or at least about DSSSL online.  Maybe Cascading
| Style Sheets (CSS) is an easy (quick and dirty) answer; I have not had
| a chance to look into it properly.  There was a great deal of
| discussion about why CSS is too simplistic a month back on
| comp.text.sgml, but it may be "good-enough" for a first run.  Every
| one here seems to want XML tools today, but we don't even have a DSSSL
| capable browser now, how many months after the standard's publication?

(Speaking officially)

The various statements of purpose for this effort have consistently
assumed that the Web SGML solution uses dsssl-o for the stylesheet
component.

(Speaking as a WG participant)

XML will motivate the incorporation of DSSSL into browsers, not the
other way around.  HTML browsers don't need DSSSL, but XML browsers
won't be able to get very far in the problem domains that require them
if all they have is CSS.

Jon


References: