[Zope] - Re: - Zope, DTML and XML

Jim Fulton jim@Digicool.com
Tue, 15 Dec 1998 20:40:07 +0000


Paul Prescod wrote:
> 
> Jim Fulton wrote:
> >
> > > Right, but DTML code is not valid XML code. It can't be edited in an XML
> > > editor, stored in an XML repository, routed through XML-based workflow,
> > > etc. etc.
> >
> > Is that important?  Python isn't valid XML code either, but it's
> > still useful.
> 
> Sure, but read my second sentence above.
> 
> According to the Zope documentation, one of the goals of DTML is to allow
> a separation of responsibilities between graphic designers and
> programmers.

Yup.

> Don't we expect graphic designers to be editing their stuff
> in XML editors in the future?

Don't know.

> If so, "DTXML" must be at least well-formed XML.

Yes.


> 
> > I think it would be useful if there was an XML-compatible
> > syntax for DTML, but I don't see that having much to do with XSL.
> 
> Maybe not. I started out trying to answer the question that was posed to
> me at SPAM 7 about how DTML and XML should work together. Perhaps I
> misunderstood the question or Paul E. didn't know that you already had the
> answer.

I don't have the anwer.  I just don't think XSL is it. :)

 
> > The difference between XSL and DTML run far deeper than syntax.
> 
> Agreed. All I'm saying is that you need a syntax and it makes sense to
> as-far-as-possible reuse syntax. For instance, your current syntax for
> embedding template instructions in attributes is <el a="<!--foo-->">. That
> isn't valid XML. The XSL syntax is <el a="{foo}"> Not surprisingly, that
> IS valid XML.

I see.
 
(snip)

> > In XSL (speaking as someone
> > pretty ignorant of XSL ;) you say things like "if you see a Foo, convert
> > it to a bar ....".  It's like the difference between Python and Prolog
> 
> That's true, but you are talking about flow of control and not the
> template syntax. I'm not suggesting a change in DTML flow of control. For
> good reasons it is function-call controlled.

Ah. Good.
 
> > I have a syntax in mind.  But that seems to me to be beside the point.
> > This discussion isn't really about syntax issues, is it?
> 
> Actually, to me it is. I think that's why we're talking past each other. I
> won't go into much detail responding to the rest of your mail, because I'm
> really not asking for DTML to become an XSL implementation. I'm just
> saying that where ideas are shared, the syntax can be shared. Thus my list
> above.

I see.
 
> If enough syntax can be shared that DTML becomes merely a non-standard
> variant of XSL, then great. If we can even think of the entire document
> base as an XML document, that would be even cooler. I'm not willing to
> propose either of those yet, however. Right now I'm just pointing out that
> XSL has a reasonable syntax for some things that "DTXML" needs to do.

If I understand you, all you want is to borrow some expression syntax from
XSL so that an XML-formatted variant of DTML could have well-formed attribute
values.  This makes a lot of sense.  I'll reread your original post in that
light.

Jim

--
Jim Fulton           mailto:jim@digicool.com
Technical Director   (540) 371-6909              Python Powered!
Digital Creations    http://www.digicool.com     http://www.python.org

Under US Code Title 47, Sec.227(b)(1)(C), Sec.227(a)(2)(B) This email
address may not be added to any commercial mail list with out my
permission.  Violation of my privacy with advertising or SPAM will
result in a suit for a MINIMUM of $500 damages/incident, $1500 for
repeats.