Re: mag-0008 (was: XML & <formula>s)

[Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@fastmail.fm>]

On Dec 13, 2004, at 1:02 PM, Adam Lindsay wrote:

> What I propose is clearly a debatable XML-design issue, but it seemed
> strange that fx:definelayout and fx:p were put into the same namespace.
> Why do the formatting definitions share the same (theoretical) schema 
> as
> markup? Your documents keep these categories separate, as one would
> expect. Why not encourage people to put them in separate files, as with
> "normal" ConTeXt workflows? The designer and author are more clearly
> divorced when you don't assume an XSLT-centric flow, right?

FWIW, I'm currently working on a comprehensive XSLT-based solution for 
bibliographic formatting (think bibtex for xml, only better).  In that, 
I'm working across multiple namespaces:

1)  document (docbook ng)
2)  bibliographic data (mods)
3)  a citation formatting language (homegrown; again, in its own 
namespace)
4)  output (xhtml, for example)

I agree with the notion that, in principle, semantic document markup 
should be in a separate namespace from the formatting language.

BTW, Hans, I've yet to see the ContML schema.  Care to post it 
somewhere?

Also, FYI, I and an engineer at Sun have some up with a small citation 
schema designed for embedding in other XML dialects.  It has been 
approved for OpenOffice.

	http://www.users.muohio.edu/darcusb/files/citation-schema.tar.gz

It's more for GUI apps (it's rather verbose), but could still be useful 
in other contexts.

Bruce