W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > November 2003

Re: Scripting DTD's

From: Christian Wolfgang Hujer <Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:18:23 +0100
To: AaronEldreth@cs.com
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <200311141618.29205.Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Aaron,

Am Freitag, 14. November 2003 14:33 schrieb AaronEldreth@cs.com:
> The DTD would simply tell the browser how to interpret the If...then, else,
> case and other handlers. XML or at least XHTML would be streatched from a
> SGML based language, to a universal programming language capable of doing
> anything. People could design their own languages bases on their needs. For
> example in Javscript,
> if (Navigator.appname == "Netscape"){
> alert("ugg, how can you stand that browser!")
> }
>
> Would become
> <!ENTITY % Script.Else
> " %If | %Then ">
> <!ENTITY % Script.Alert "CDATA">
> <!ENTITY % Script.Start
> " { ">
> <!ENTITY % Script.End
> " } ">
>
> in a schema
>
> I am not a great XML DTD creator, and handlers would have to added in the
> native language, but it would not be too hard.

To make keep it short:

a) concerns of scripting languages beyond an interface for integrating them in 
XHTML documents (<script/>, event handlers) are far far beyond the scope of 
XHTML.
b) grammars to specify languages exist. See BNF.
c) It's impossible to use a common denominator for programming languages, 
which is the required base for developing a "Lego" language framework. The 
reason: the languages differ too much.
d) The DTD would just define the symbols used in the language for reverse 
usage. A seperate XML based language instead of such a DTD would do a much 
better job, because the grammar definition itself needs to be validated and 
that validation task again needs a DTD and more.
e) Why would someone want to define his/her own language? Defining a computer 
language is a huge task. And do not underestimate scripting languages. Just 
because your swiss pocket knife is used as a toy only doesn't mean it is as 
simple as toys use to be.
f) user agent vendors are glad they only need to support a single scripting 
language: Ecma Script (aka JavaScript). Why should they support such a 
feature?
g) What's the profit for the user (surfer)?
h) What's the profit for the user agent vendors?
i) What's the profit for the document / script authors?

I think the rest of the discussion should not be sent to the list (because of 
a)). Of course, if you think otherwise, again include the list in your reply.


Bye
- -- 
ITCQIS GmbH
Christian Wolfgang Hujer
Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter (Shareholding CEO)
Telefon: +49  (0)89  27 37 04 37
Telefax: +49  (0)89  27 37 04 39
E-Mail: Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com
WWW: http://www.itcqis.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/tPJEzu6h7O/MKZkRAvD6AKCSCLjg4m1UjfLMYT9zUKUDcMxmxQCePXpk
kD37ywQGKaGoABA3vk3w6uk=
=wkD/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Monday, 17 November 2003 04:35:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:40:10 UTC