Re: Generic Markup
>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?
Sigh. Who do you think *really* controls what people implement? It's
the people creating *content*, not browser writers. If a CLASS-based
solution is deployed, and a lot of content is created that makes
extensive use of it, then you have a lot of momentum for people to
continue doing so.
It the *program* level, there's not a lot of difference, but for where
the WWW goes in the future, there's a world of difference. It's tru
that GI-based systems should be able to do everything CLASS-based
systems can do (and for that matter, they can even use CLASS if they
want to, in that framework), and more, but it's primarily a question
of guiding users toward a more capable future.
>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
I resent the implication of that statement. Many people know that
while I may be somewhat stubborn, it's only because I want to have
powerful, flexible systems that can *interoperate*. CSS does not need
to be tossed at all (though DSSSL is preferable). As I said before,
GI's + CSS is fairly powerful (though some limitations in CSS make it
difficult to use truly arbitrary markup, it will work for most
important cases, and achieve reasonable results.
>Maturing, source-code available implementations of CLASS exist right
>now. Can you say the same about DSSSL (lite) or other SGML-style