- From: Len Bullard <cbullard@HiWAAY.net>
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 09:37:20 -0600
- To: Jon Bosak <bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM>
- CC: papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca, tbray@textuality.com, w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Jon Bosak wrote: > Personally, I think that the only strategy that makes sense here is > the full frontal attack: enable dsssl-o processing through plug-ins or > applets and insist that real XML browsers are browsers with dsssl-o > capabilities. DSSSL is powerful. JADE is a good thing to have. Why would XML of necessity, (meaning, a requirement for conformance) require DSSSL? If simplicity is a goal, there are simpler ways to create stylesheets than DSSSL. Remember, I am not arguing against DSSSL or it's power, but I am asking why a "RealXML browser" must use it. That sounds like the sort of legal beagle trick that forces a system solution rather than enabling the vendor and the market to choose. The result will be to isolate XML, or tools, or certain vendors. Isolation leads to war quicker than a free trade zone. DSSSL must sell itself. If there is a compelling need and only one *obvious* solution, why is that a problem? The Technical Corrigendum and alignment made it possible to develop systems that can use the SGML standards family without conflicts, but it doesn't force that. XML is in a much weaker position to attempt to force that. Anyway, aren't hyperlinks the next scheduled task? len bullard
Received on Monday, 25 November 1996 10:37:35 UTC