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
>favored solution? 

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
>proposed systems? 

Yes.

Received on Monday, 12 August 1996 20:25:20 UTC