Re: CSS vs. DSSSL-O
Jon Bosak wrote:
> Notice that I began my comment with the word "personally". This means
> that I am expressing my personal desire or opinion, not an official
> <li>The specification of extensions and public text needed to make
> DSSSL (SGML's stylesheet language) work in an Internet context.
Also noted and I have very publicly stated support for DSSSL.
But public announcements aside, I am looking for a technically
compelling reason that this is the focus. IOW, if the CSS
supporters have a case to make, they should make it. Otherwise,
DSSSL-O is a fait accompli of a work item not a decision arrived
at as a result of open technical debate. If by the conference
cited, the CSS developers can also show how they would support XML
using their approach, doesn't that strengthen XML? I don't
know about particular XML applications (e.g, document types),
but for some it must certainly be reasonable to use CSS. If
that statement is technically incorrect, please tell me why.
What I am saying is that I don't think that it is necessary
to pit the style languages against each other for the sake
of XML in more than it is necessary when one has a style
lanaguage two parties agree to use to pit HTML against SGML.
That seems bizarre. Why aren't stylesheet systems registered
and negotiated like other MIME types?
> | 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.
Certainly, that is a worthy goal. Having the XML working group provide
the recommendations for applying DSSSL-O to XML is fine. Having
them choose DSSSL over CSS doesn't seem to be necessary. It's like
asking them to choose HTML over TEI. Why?
Hyperlinking is a bit different. That is asking them to provide
recommendations for something the Internet does not currently have
except as xenoforms disguised as applet, imagemap, object, etc
tags in HTML. Whereas SGML applications already have plenty of these
and it seems prudent to arrive at a set we can all use as SGML
legacy moves onto the networks. OTH, wouldn't linktypes for the network
have to consider all of the notations if interoperability among
notation handlers is to be preserved?