Welcome to WebHeadStart.org

Web Technologies

Sponsored By

WebHeadStart.org is currently in beta.
Please pardon our appearance as we work to provide you with the most comprehensive reference on today's web technologies.

Interested in advertising on WebHeadStart? Become an advertising partner today!

[WWW-HTML Mailing List Archive Home] [Messages By Thread] [Messages By Date]

Re: Scripting DTD's

From: Christian Wolfgang Hujer <Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:18:23 +0100
To: AaronEldreth@cs.com
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <200311141618.29205.Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Aaron,

Am Freitag, 14. November 2003 14:33 schrieb AaronEldreth@cs.com:
> The DTD would simply tell the browser how to interpret the If...then, else,
> case and other handlers. XML or at least XHTML would be streatched from a
> SGML based language, to a universal programming language capable of doing
> anything. People could design their own languages bases on their needs. For
> example in Javscript,
> if (Navigator.appname == "Netscape"){
> alert("ugg, how can you stand that browser!")
> }
>
> Would become
> <!ENTITY % Script.Else
> " %If | %Then ">
> <!ENTITY % Script.Alert "CDATA">
> <!ENTITY % Script.Start
> " { ">
> <!ENTITY % Script.End
> " } ">
>
> in a schema
>
> I am not a great XML DTD creator, and handlers would have to added in the
> native language, but it would not be too hard.

To make keep it short:

a) concerns of scripting languages beyond an interface for integrating them in 
XHTML documents (<script/>, event handlers) are far far beyond the scope of 
XHTML.
b) grammars to specify languages exist. See BNF.
c) It's impossible to use a common denominator for programming languages, 
which is the required base for developing a "Lego" language framework. The 
reason: the languages differ too much.
d) The DTD would just define the symbols used in the language for reverse 
usage. A seperate XML based language instead of such a DTD would do a much 
better job, because the grammar definition itself needs to be validated and 
that validation task again needs a DTD and more.
e) Why would someone want to define his/her own language? Defining a computer 
language is a huge task. And do not underestimate scripting languages. Just 
because your swiss pocket knife is used as a toy only doesn't mean it is as 
simple as toys use to be.
f) user agent vendors are glad they only need to support a single scripting 
language: Ecma Script (aka JavaScript). Why should they support such a 
feature?
g) What's the profit for the user (surfer)?
h) What's the profit for the user agent vendors?
i) What's the profit for the document / script authors?

I think the rest of the discussion should not be sent to the list (because of 
a)). Of course, if you think otherwise, again include the list in your reply.


Bye
- -- 
ITCQIS GmbH
Christian Wolfgang Hujer
Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter (Shareholding CEO)
Telefon: +49  (0)89  27 37 04 37
Telefax: +49  (0)89  27 37 04 39
E-Mail: Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com
WWW: http://www.itcqis.com/ 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/tPJEzu6h7O/MKZkRAvD6AKCSCLjg4m1UjfLMYT9zUKUDcMxmxQCePXpk
kD37ywQGKaGoABA3vk3w6uk=
=wkD/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Monday, 17 November 2003 04:35:39 GMT
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | WebHeadStart.org © 2005 All Rights Reserved.