forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Turner <>
Subject Re: Adding *.html matcher to xdocs
Date Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:25:41 GMT
On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 09:27:24AM +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Jeff Turner wrote, On 14/07/2003 1.14:
> >If you no longer wish to argue that ihtml doesn't break SoC, I'd like to 
> >see your argument of how ehtml does.
> ehtml does not pass at all into the Document format, hence cannot be 
> transformed into PDF or any other mean. ehtml is exactly like a 
> hardwired <asis> just beloy <body>.
> Basically I'm proposing a more fine-grained ehtml.

That's a very good point.

> >>ehtml is the same thing as the solution you described in those mails. 
> >>Funny enough, what you say about my proposal is the same thing I said 
> >>about yours (albeit I had proposed a solution instead of offering you 
> >>to use another system), and your current proposal is the same as the 
> >>previous one.
> >
> >I wasn't proposing to get rid of ihtml, merely countering your 
> >suggestion to get rid of ehtml and have just *.html.
> Well, ihtml itself has shortcomings, so I'd really like to see a unified 
> html processing module.

When we eventually move to a namespace-friendly schema language we should
be able to throw any old XML (including XHTML) into Forrest docs.  So I
guess you're right, I was wrong; there's nothing conceptually wrong with
mixing content formats (HTML and doc-v12) in a single doc.

But the tag name, "asis", has all the wrong connotations to me.  It
hardcodes an expected behaviour -- "pass this through".  Content should
not be telling the processor what to do with it.  Just as <b> tells the
renderer "render this as bold", <asis> tells it "pass through
unmodified".  That is why I felt you were breaking SoC, desecrating
temples, clubbing seals ;)

So, to keep everyone's blood pressure within healthy limits, how about
using a namespace attribute instead of <asis>?  Namespaces are nice and
declarative; "this is HTML, treat it how you will".

> Let's strike a deal then: I modify ihtml to make it as I would like to 
> see the unified html, then we see how it works and if it can be ok.


> Agreed?

and in addition..

View raw message