- From: Alan Karben <karben@interactive.wsj.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 10:15:21 -0500
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 01:02 PM 3/25/97 +0000, Martin Bryan wrote: >>><logo html-equiv="img" html-atts="src=file ismap=treat-as" file="fig1.gif" >>>treat-as="ismap"> ... >> >>The shoehorning doesn't buy you 'backwards-compatibility,' and the quoting >>issues and general inelegance would prove problematic, I'd bet. > >This shoehorning is the only way I can see of introducing concepts such as >Forms into XML without having to re-invent the world. What's wrong with the Paul's DSSSL approach, or a (cleaner, non-HTML mentioning) architectural-form approach? Is <form> support on the XML-wg agenda? >What we need to do is to deliver content-describing XML in a way that is as >easy to present to users as a format-describing HTML file. No problem, assuming easy-to-use XML stylesheet editors ;-) Unfortunately, XML+DSSSL is hard to sell to the "Notepad" crowd. >>Since the DSSSL formatting step is last on XML-WG's list, and folks here >>seem to describe a need to take advantage of (reuse) the browsers' current >>HTML rendering capabilities, how about a plug-in module to convert text/xml >>into HTML? That gives you the formatting. > >No it doesn't. What about those elements that are not expressible in HTML, >such as the maths, chemics, .... which are what differentiates SGML >publishing from Web publishing. What differentiates (well-designed) SGML publishing from (current) Web publishing, in my mind, is the following: The former gives publishers an eXtensible way to describe content, whereas the latter gives leading browser makers an exten$ible way to describe formatting. So if MSFT or NSCP ever decide to throw in a set of formatting commands to make equations *look* good, then much of your argument disappears. Alan.
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 1997 10:12:37 UTC