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

Re: ERB decisions on the LINKTYPE proposal



> I am in other words proposing that we exploit the fact that XML uses a
> fixed SGML declaration to change the reserved names LINKTYPE and LINK to
> PROCSPEC and PROCDEF respectively. An XML document will then consist of
> an (optional) document type definition, an (optional) processing
> specification, and the instance itself.

<PHILOSOPHY>
#1. When you tell the application that an element is a link through an
attribute, is that processing or structure? It seems like structure to me. 

#2. If I'm wrong, and it is processing, shouldn't it be outside of
the document, in a stylesheet? I thought that that was part of the SGML
"philosophy". Processing does not go in the document.

#3. Isn't DSSSL now the ISO standard language for associating processing with 
documents? Wasn't it developed because LINK was not powerful enough?

I would argue that now that DSSSL exists, ICADD should be re-done as one of

a) a set of flow objects,

b) a target format of the transformation language,
or perhaps,

c) a whole new language, parallel to the style language and transformation 
language.

That does not mean that I think that the LINK feature is useless. I can
understand the benefit of having a declarative mechanism for defining
one DTD in terms of another (architectural forms), and I believe that 
LINK is necessary for this to work well, but I do not think of 
architectural forms as a mechanism for specifying processing any more than
I think of a GI as a "command" to an application.
</PHILOSOPHY>

<PRACTICAL>
To be honest, I have not been following closely enough to know if Steve has
outlined a simple mechanism for bringing the full power of architectural
forms to XML without requiring massive implementation time or author
confusion. I think that a simple declarative model for defining one DTD
in terms of another would be powerful and elegant, but architectural forms 
in SGML do not seem simple to me.
</PRACTICAL>

 Paul Prescod


References: