forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
Subject Re: Adding *.html matcher to xdocs
Date Mon, 14 Jul 2003 15:36:23 GMT

Jeff Turner wrote, On 14/07/2003 12.25:

> 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.

Ok, I think we understood each other :-)

>>>>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.

AFAYK, is there a reason why we cannot do this now? Was it the "use a 
DTD in the editor" thing? Will it go away soon? Can we easily keep two 
sets of schemas?

> 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.

We could put also SVG BTW (cool for PDF output).

> 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 ;)

Ok, I agree (especially about clubbing seals, which means going in clubs 
with 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".

Sure. What I am seeking is a way of making this possible, as for the 
implementation I'm open.

And in fact, the namespace thing also solves my other issue about having 
an asis tag altogether, that is clearly separating the two parts of the 
page. Namespaces are perfect for this.

What I think triggered incomprehension was the fact that I started it 
from the *.html side, which is really only a front-end for the 
subsequent multi-namespaced document. But of course, before this 
discussion I didn't even know this ;-)

>>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.
> +1


> and in addition..


Nicola Ken Barozzi         
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)

View raw message