----------
> From: Sarkela <sarkela at home.com>
> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:10:13 -0800
> To: <spair at advantive.com>
> Subject: Re: [ENH] XML UI Specs for Morphic and MVC (kind of long, but
> worthit...)
> 
> 
>> From: "Stephen Pair" <spair at advantive.com>
>> [...] 
>> How difficult would it be to extend this to support XHTML based specs?
>> Seems like the spec ojects should be able to generate and parse XHTML as
>> easily as they could deal with the current markup language.  Of course, the
>> range of possible UIs that Squeak could render would be far beyond that of
>> most web browsers.  It seems that something like this could come in quite
>> handy.  Same for XSL.
>> 
>> - Stephen
> 
> What was that middle part again??? ;-}> I'm fairly ignorant of the details
> of either XHTML or XSL. However, if they entail self generating schema
> engines, then there probably won't be any difficulty at all. The trick
> is to define a schema language simple enough to be able to define itself.
> Once you have that, you create subclasses of NonVisualSpec that bind
> the semantics of each of the schema language constructs. The constructs
> can even include smarts about how to reduce themselves whilst preserving
> their meaning. The existing XMLUiSpecParser actually has no knowledge of
> what kind of document it is parsing. It relys entirely upon the global
> NonVisualSpec to tell it the spec node for the current tag.
> Parsing actions are all dispatched off the current spec node.
> Is this in the ballpark???
> 
> Hmmmm... perhaps we should reconsider the names of some of the classes.
> If they really are more generally useful, then their names should
> probably reflect that.
> 
> [|] John Sarkela
> ReThink Systems