- From: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 12:58:43 -0400
- To: cwilso@microsoft.com
- Cc: drand@sgi.com, preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com, rieger@bse.de, TFRETER@novell.com, www-style@w3.org
>>>CSS requires a seperate lexer/scanner. In fact if you go and look at >>>a few scheme implementations, you'll see that the code required for >>>parsing DSSSL is considerably less than the code needed to parser CSS >>>(and faking it by using lex and yacc doesn't cut it). > >Having looked at DSSSL and CSS in some depth, I would strongly contest >the "considerably less" statement above. However, there are two >issues Note that I have said *parser*. The syntax of DSSSL is far simpler (and far more uniform!) than CSS. I agree that the implementation of a full DSSSL engine would be much larger than a CSS engine, but I don't think DSSSL-O would require all that much extra work/code. >The concept of a tree transformation engine, for example, is difficult >to grasp in Web browsers that currently don't even maintain document >structure according to the strict SGML nesting model. STTP is not required for DSSSL-O.
Received on Friday, 26 April 1996 13:00:52 UTC