Date: Mon Sep 18 2000 - 13:37:47 PDT
I fully agree. I think the key word you use here is "canonical".
That is the word we are looking at as well.
If you don't mind, I'll forward you a copy of the White Paper once it's
finished and you can comment on it. I am certain that it has many flaws,
but it will be a beginning.
Thanks for the link and I'll look at the thread.
----- Original Message -----
From: "S. Mike Dierken" <email@example.com>
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 10:54 AM
Subject: FW: [Wash Post] The WAP backlash continues...
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gavin Thomas Nicol [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 10:54 AM
> > To: email@example.com
> > Subject: RE: [Wash Post] The WAP backlash continues...
> > > While I agree, we have been (at eBuilt) looking at "families"
> > of devices.
> > > It seems like you can stream line the XSL creation process by
> > > assigning one XSL to a family of devices.
> > You can do better than that too. Essentially, a document produced
> > by a stylesheet applied to an XML document is the same as a
> > transformation function applied to the document. If you regard
> > the headers, devices etc. as part of the "environment" in which
> > the function is applied, a methodology for parameterizing
> > stylesheets is pretty obvious.
> This is a key insight - to regard the headers, devices, etc. as part of
> 'environment' of the processor.
> It lets you do lots of things with simple tools. It makes you consider
> systems for generating dynamic web content (Apache mods, PHP, ASP,
> etc.) as transformation systems.
> In the past I had suggested coming up with a canonical XML DTD for the
> in HTTP Request and Response objects. This would let XML processing
> play with the full HTTP information.
> Here is a pointer to a message talking about this a little.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 18 2000 - 13:38:12 PDT