Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:24:00 -0400
Joachim Schrod <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> As much as I respect James, I can only agree with him here on a very
> very abstract level. With "style sheets" above I didn't mean
> transforming XML to other markup languages, I meant *directly*
> typesetting XML documents, with a *very* high quality, and including
I view my xml -> latex step as translation of a markup language to a
typesetting language and, correspondingly, view the sgmlspl script for
it as the functional equivalent of a "style sheet". I don't see why
it matters that the step from xml document to dvi or pdf is a pipeline
that uses (pdf)latex.
> ... sheet front has not stopped here and will continue after the XML
> hype is gone.
I'm not sure what you mean by xml hype. Not all xml document types
are document markup languages; for example, ctan-catalogue-entry is
not a markup but is structured data. Authors who want re-useable
source should use an xml document type that is a document markup
language. The difference between that and present LaTeX is that the
author's content is then stored under a template for generalized
processing and is, therefore, (if the document type is good) maximally
re-useable. Moreover, it is possible to determine in a format
independent way if such a document instance is technically correct.
Good LaTeX markup can come very close to meeting that criterion, but
it's very hard to define just what good LaTeX markup is.