Re: Generic Markup
Gavin Nicol <firstname.lastname@example.org>
|There are 3 things:
| 1) We have to be wary of starting down the CLASS path, because of
| the momentum that will be generated (that might adversely affect
| the deployment of sounder solutions)
Wait a sec. You said earlier that there was, for all intents and purposes,
slim difference in the task of processing structure expressed through GI's or
through attributes. If its the same difference in processing, then how can it
adversely affect the deployment of sounder solutions? I could see how it might
be problematic if content models (that get lost in CLASS) are important, but
retaining and enforcing content models with arbitrary GI's seems even a tougher
nut to crack than implementing CLASS.
| 2) With the level of sophistication involved in properly supporting
| CLASS, it is probably advisable to spend the effort on a more
| scaleable solution (in other words, we should start hammering out
| an application profile of SGML for delivery on the WWW, ASAP).
With the amount of effort already expended over the past 1.5 yr on CSS, are you
suggesting that be thrown away even though a SGML ERB has just began working
towards what might end up looking like your favored solution?
| 3) Arguments that CLASS is easier to support/build software for are
Maturing, source-code available implementations of CLASS exist right now. Can
you say the same about DSSSL (lite) or other SGML-style proposed systems?