[Len Bullard:]

| 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.


Follow-Ups: References: