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

Re: Stylesheet association



Lee writes:
>No -- that would mean that you could only parse XML documents if you
could parse the xlinks in this external document, so the document
would have to become part of the base XML spec, making that language
more complex.

I don't understand this remark (and I did follow the WG's iscussion
of EMPTY, and I do have a lot of sympathy for the result).
                       
An XML-compliant application will have to be able to parse xmllinks,
won't it?  Or are you envisioning applications that can parse XML
but not xmllinks?

Regards,
  Terry Allen    Electronic Publishing Consultant    tallen[at]sonic.net
       specializing in Web publishing, SGML, and the DocBook DTD 
                   http://www.sonic.net/~tallen/
  A Davenport Group Sponsor:  http://www.ora.com/davenport/index.html

From w3c-sgml-wg-request@w3.org Wed Mar 12 10:01:00 1997
Received: from www19.w3.org (www19.w3.org [18.29.0.19]) by sub.sonic.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA09294 for <tallen@sonic.net>; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 10:00:53 -0800
Received: by www19.w3.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA01138; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 12:58:39 -0500
Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 12:58:39 -0500
Resent-Message-Id: <199703121758.MAA01138@www19.w3.org>
From: lee@sq.com
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 97 12:57:23 EST
Message-Id: <9703121757.AA04523@sqrex.sq.com>
To: crm@eps.inso.com, tallen@sonic.net, w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Stylesheet association
X-List-URL: http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Archives/Public/w3c-sgml-wg/
X-See-Also: http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/SGML/Activity
Resent-From: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/3532
X-Loop: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Sender: w3c-sgml-wg-request@w3.org
Resent-Sender: w3c-sgml-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
Status: R

Terry Allen <tallen@sonic.net> wrote:
> Chris Maden writes:
[...]
> | An xlink can be used to associate multiple possible stylesheets with a
> | document.  This method allows an XLG to associate stylesheets with
> | read-only documents.
> 
> Works for me. [...] this other document could also contain
> [...] a summary of all the GIs in the read-only document that
> are EMPTY. That would enable XML (or at least the read-only document)
> to do without the <empty/> syntax, and potentially make many existing
> SGML documents valid XML documents.

No -- that would mean that you could only parse XML documents if you
could parse the xlinks in this external document, so the document
would have to become part of the base XML spec, making that language
more complex.

This has all been discussed ad infinitum in the XML WG list, and the
current draft XML syntax for EMPTY elements is a compromise with good
reasons.  I (reluctantly) refer you to the archive...

The issue of existing SGML documents being valid XML is also much more
complex than just changing <empty> to <empty/>, and needs the use of a
tool like James Clark's SPAM anyway -- which could easily add the / in
empty elements' tags.

Any more on this probably belongs on the XML list, or in private mail!

Lee

-- 
Liam Quin, lee@sq.com         | lq-text freely available Unix text retrieval
Senior Technical Consultant   | FAQs: Metafont fonts, OPEN LOOK UI, OpenWindows
SoftQuad Inc. +1 416 544-9000 | xfonttool (Unix xfontsel in XView)
http://www.softquad.com/      | the barefoot programmer