Re: Inline macros

David Ornstein (davido@objarts.com)
Thu, 25 Apr 1996 13:40:18 -0700


Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960425204018.00e0e438@mail.objarts.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 13:40:18 -0700
To: erik <erik@inch.com>, Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
From: David Ornstein <davido@objarts.com>
Subject: Re: Inline macros
Cc: www-html@w3.org

At 04:12 PM 4/25/96 -0400, erik wrote:
>> Scripting features in HTML _is_ a topic for this list, and we
>> can learn how _not_ to do it by examining JavaScript
>
>What is needed in HTML is a way to allow arbitrary NON-SGML 
>sections in a document.....(embedded perl...embedded 
>java...etc.).  This way we can stop the threat of w3's 
>obsolescence.
>
>The META tag fits into SGML....which is why no one writes 
>macro languages around it.
>
>-------------------------------
><H2>My flashy macro thing page
><P>
>
><SECTION NAME=* TYPE=txt/x-funk SEPARATOR="!!!!nonsgml!!!!!">
>%my(funcky, macro)
>!!!!nonsgml!!!!!
>
><SECTION NAME=* TYPE=txt/java>
>my(java, macro);
></NOT-SGML>

So how would you parse such a thing?  It seems a bit of a drag to burden the
parser (and lexical analyzer) with understanding the stuff between the
<section> and the end of the non-SGML.  I like the idea of being able to
embed non-HTML/SGML stuff in the document, but I like to keep the semantic
processing (i.e., the part the looks at the tags and their attributes)
separate from the parsing.

Is there some literal introduction character we could use (back tick or
something) that would allow the lexer to simply gobble this stuff up into
one big binary chunk?  This would allow something like:

<mimesection type=txt/x-funk>
`%my(funcky, macro);
more stuff in the funk language`
</mimesection>

Am I nuts?