Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Paul Tchistopolskii <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 22:16:35 -0800
> > Because avoiding the difference between attributes and elements
> > simplifyes the addressing and *every* realted API ( Xpath, Xslt, DOM,
> > XQL e t.c. ) a *lot* + it avoids 'multiple levels of encoding' problems
> e t.c.
> That seems like the best reason to remove attributes from "SML" to me too.
> A couple of potential downsides ...
> If SML parsers don't recognize attributes, then we can't have an SML-ized
> XHTML. Does anyone care? How about WML? I for one would care if WML was
> incompatible with SML ...
We have a huge 'legacy' problem with attributes. I suggest to solve the
legacy problems in the way they are solved in general.
SML <-> XML-format-with-attributes converter, or especial layer e t.c,
but *not* the changes to SML layer.
> How about XSLT? It would be nice if stylesheets to turn SML into something
> displayable were themselves parseable as SML. I'm pretty sure that you
> couldn't write a useful XSLT stylesheet without using attributes ....
S-XSLT should be written anyway. XT will hardly fit into
cell phone ;-)
S-XSLT processor should be much easier to write than
it was to write XT ( the same is with SML parser, S-SAX, e t.c.):
1. All inventions are already in place ;-)
2. All that is needed is 'bugfixing' the existing design
in some places.
3. 'Bugfixing' could often be 'throw away'.
However, at the first step ( on server side ;-) SML files could be
processed by XSLT processor, because SML is XML - no
big problem here.
> I'm inclined to allow attributes in SML itself but to have a "non-normative
> appendix" that is a fairly integral part of the document explaining that
> attributes are supported only for compatibility reasons and discouraging
> people from using them in "new" SML applications and outlining the various
> attribute-related pitfalls to avoid.
I think it is bad idea. "We give you this feature but you should not use it".
I think it's better not to give that feature at all, because ... Because it'l
not force us to write S-XSLT, for example.
And because I think that it would be always possible to solve some
legacy problem with especial mapping layer ( using XT, for example )
to go from SML to *ML, like people are doing now, utilizing some
SGML tools with XML
At the moment there is simply no solid XML-ish way to render the
XML documents to different media. I think mostly people are
utilizing SGML-ish tools for such a task, 'converting' XML to SGML.
I don't understand why can't we do the same with SML, converting it
to XML ( with belowed attributes ;-). Should be *very* easy with XT,
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)