At 15:31 12/11/1998 , you wrote:
  | Didier PH Martin wrote:
  | > 
  | > Hi Paul
  | > 
  | > you said:
  | > I don't think of Omnimark as high-level. I think of it as ultra
low-level.
  | > It is focused on the nuts and bolts of the text.
  | > 
  | > Can you briefly describe what you mean by "low level and focused on the
  | > text". Is it lower level than XSL and if yes why. We can learn from your
  | > explanations.
  | 
  | Omnimark is about string processing. It is very good at matching strings
  | that are SGML tags and so forth, but the basic model is the same as
  | working through an RTF string or a comma delimited file string. When I
  | work with XML, I want to think of it as just a serialization for a *tree*.
  | It's the tree that I want to work with in my code. Omnimark is low-level
  | in that it works with the string and not the abstraction it represents.

This is not actually true.

Yes, Omnimark has a lot of "regular-expression"-type string handling.

It's big strength is that it _also_ has an integrated, but separate, 
DTD-based system.

In the string handling side of things you say:

	FIND <pattern>
		WHEN <something> IS TRUE

		<do something>

However, in the SGML/XML side, you say:

	ELEMENT Foo

		OUTPUT Bar

	ELEMENT Para
		WHEN PARENT IS Something

		<do something>

So, yes, Omnimark does allow you to consider an XML document
as a tree. And the advantage of something like Omnimark (versus
XSL) is that it's a full programming language. This makes it
a lot more expressive and powerful.

As ever, I am speaking for myself, not as a spokesperson
for Omnimark Technologies.

Cheers,

J

-------------------------
James Robertson
Step Two Designs Pty Ltd
SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy
http://www.steptwo.com.au/
jamesr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Beyond the Idea"
 ACN 081 019 623


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list