- From: Liam R. E. Quin <liam@fromoldbooks.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 17:50:49 -0500
- To: james.schoening@ieee.org, 'Alan Karp' <alanhkarp@gmail.com>
- Cc: 'Nis Jespersen' <nis.jespersen@gmail.com>, 'steve capell' <steve.capell@gmail.com>, 'Christopher Allen' <ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity.com>, 'Anders Rundgren' <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>, "'Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web)'" <mwherman@parallelspace.net>, 'public-credentials' <public-credentials@w3.org>
On Mon, 2022-11-28 at 14:35 -0500, james.schoening@ieee.org wrote: > Alan, > > > > I agree an uber-ontology could not succeed, because it would grow far > too large. This is how SGML came to be - the predecessor, GML, came from a US government attempt to define a single formatting and typesetting language for all possible needs, and it ended up impossible. So they had to support domain-specific markup (and hence ontologies), which is what we inherited in XML of course. The difficulty in mapping between them led first to ISO DSSSL, which has a transformation step and a formatting step. You would first transform your SGML into the format that you knew how to format with the second step. This became XSLT (transformations) and XSL-FO (formatting), both of course widely used today. XSLT in particular is a domain-specific functional (declarative) language for mapping between tree-structured information sets. XSLT is harder to use than not mapping (obviously), but a lot easier in many cases (and more performant) than using procedural approaches. liam -- Liam Quin, https://www.delightfulcomputing.com/ Available for XML/Document/Information Architecture/XSLT/ XSL/XQuery/Web/Text Processing/A11Y training, work & consulting. Barefoot Web-slave, antique illustrations: http://www.fromoldbooks.org
Received on Monday, 28 November 2022 22:52:31 UTC