Re: XML + (XSL | CSS) ?

Subject: Re: XML + (XSL | CSS) ?
From: Chris Lilley <chris@xxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 21:38:42 +0200
Francois Belanger wrote:

> For me, XSL is for server-side and CSS is for clients-side.
> See Sean Russell Docproc for a good example of server-side XSL put to
> work today:

I have a problem with quick hacks: they are difficult to kill, years
later. Dumbing down XML into HTML may give you great looking web pages,
now, using the well established tables and GIF hacks. 

It also gives you:

- stunningly inaccessible web pages with zero structure
- no way to style the XML how you want (because you never see it)
- no incentive to develop native XML browsers (because "there isn't any
XML on the Web")

I see that the docproc documentation includes the comment:

>> 08 Feb 98 An email from Chris Lilley has prompted 
>> me to clean up the HTML docproc generates, and I'm 
>> trying to get the output to at least pass through 
>> a validator unmolested. 

And I see that the generated HTML now has a little more structure than
previously, so my complaining in the past did some good ;-). But as Sean
said at the time, once the XML has passed through a stylesheet you have
lost all the semantics, and only know you have a "paragraph" flow object
or whatever. It is hard to generate accessible, semantically rich, (or
even valid) HTML in such circumstances.

I would much, much rather see the XML being server up and styled with
CSS, or with an XSL implementation that was client-side and included
real flow objects. Server-side generation of crappy presentational HTML,
circa 1995-style, is what style sheets were supposed to take us away
from. The range of web-enabled clients is increasing, not decreasing;
presentational HTML that assumes a particular window width, font size
etc is just a fruitless cul-de-sac.


 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread