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.