>For XML, the Perl/Python/Java hacker will probably find much easier >to write a custom parser (which is, in effect, a stylesheet hardcoded >into the parser) than to learn DSSSL. With tools like XML::Parser for >Perl or XP for Java, it is a piece of cake. It is probably not >realistic for a huge DTD like DocBk, but for most DTDs, it is a very >convenient way.
I don't know if I agree with that. If you are assuming a blank slate w.r.t. DSSSL, you should also assume a blank slate w.r.t. Perl or Java. The fact is, DSSSL is much easier than Perl. The DSSSL spec is very readable for the most part; I find groves to be an extremely powerful technique for document processing. Finally, I agree with Stallman than Scheme is a nicer, easier, cleaner language than pretty much anything out there. And remember that I'm a Perl hacker since 1990. I think Scheme has suffered unfairly, because people are resistant to all those parens, like "fingernails in oatmeal". Anyhow, you are certainly correct that there needs to be more documentation about SGML and about DSSSL. See the efforts of the OpenJade group <URL:http://www.netfolder.com/DSSSL/>. Let us in the Debian camp solve *our* side of it -- the problem of integration and standardization. Whatever my feelings about SGML and DSSSL, however, Debian is big enough to accomodate all of them! Perl-base SGMLspm, custom parser/formatters like sdc, Jade, OpenJade, etc etc. -- .....Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
