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

Follow-Ups: References: