Re: CSS vs. DSSSL-O
| 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?
Notice that I began my comment with the word "personally". This means
that I am expressing my personal desire or opinion, not an official
However, I would like to point out that dsssl-o has been specified as
the formatting standard for what we now call XML since the W3C page
for this activity went public in June. The relevant section reads as
<p>Specific deliverables under development by the SGML WG/ERB include:
<li>The specification of an application profile defining a form of
generic SGML designed for Internet transmission and processing by user
<li>The specification of basic hypertext link types to be used with
SGML. These types have yet to be identified, but a basic goal is to
go beyond the single link type in HTML to include the types that have
been considered basic in hypertext systems for the last decade.
<li>The specification of extensions and public text needed to make
DSSSL (SGML's stylesheet language) work in an Internet context.
| Anyway, aren't hyperlinks the next scheduled task?
Yes. And it's because that will be our next official task that I was
proposing to anyone interested that we try to get some dsssl-o support
going on the side.