On Dec 13, 2004, at 1:02 PM, Adam Lindsay wrote:

What I propose is clearly a debatable XML-design issue, but it seemed
strange that fx:definelayout and fx:p were put into the same namespace.
Why do the formatting definitions share the same (theoretical) schema as
markup? Your documents keep these categories separate, as one would
expect. Why not encourage people to put them in separate files, as with
"normal" ConTeXt workflows? The designer and author are more clearly
divorced when you don't assume an XSLT-centric flow, right?

FWIW, I'm currently working on a comprehensive XSLT-based solution for bibliographic formatting (think bibtex for xml, only better). In that, I'm working across multiple namespaces:

1) document (docbook ng)
2) bibliographic data (mods)
3) a citation formatting language (homegrown; again, in its own namespace)
4) output (xhtml, for example)

I agree with the notion that, in principle, semantic document markup should be in a separate namespace from the formatting language.

BTW, Hans, I've yet to see the ContML schema. Care to post it somewhere?

Also, FYI, I and an engineer at Sun have some up with a small citation schema designed for embedding in other XML dialects. It has been approved for OpenOffice.


It's more for GUI apps (it's rather verbose), but could still be useful in other contexts.


ntg-context mailing list

Reply via email to