> What if we support little bits of DSSSL inside processing instructions,
> ala:
>
> <ul>
> <? (space-before: 12pt) >
> <li> xlkjdlfkj
> <li> ablkjasdf
> </ul>
>
> <dl>
> <? (font-weight: 'bold font-size: 14pt)> <!-- get the right font -->
> <dt>Slug
> <dd> explanation
> </dl>
>
> This has the following features:
>
> * It's simple to maintain
> * It's independent of the DTD. You could use it in HTML, HTML+,
> DocBook, etc.
> * The semantics can be defined in terms of DSSSL, a (draft)
> international standard with zillions of person-years of
> work behind it
> (if a different stylesheet mechanism gets deployed, the same
> sort of thing should work. But DSSSL-Lite seems as good
> as any right now.)
> * It doesn't affect the structure of the document
Why do you prefer a processing instruction to some sort of
architectural form? For example,
<!element style - - any>
<!attlist style
DSSSL NAME #FIXED style-long-names -- there might be an alternative
architectural form
with shorter (RCS) names --
font-weight (ultra-light | extra-light | light | semi-light
| medium | semi-bold | bold | extra-bold | ultra-bold)
#IMPLIED
font-size NUTOKEN #IMPLIED
space-before NUTOKEN #IMPLIED
space-after NUTOKEN #IMPLIED
-- and so on --
>
You could easily add this to any DTD as an inclusion, or a DTD
designer could use these forms selectively to give a bit more control.
You could even use LINK to associate these attributes with elements.
James