Re: Fw: W3C-transformation language petition

[Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx]

Hi Oren.

The FOs *we currently have* are certianly biased toward 2D presentation,
that is because FOs as they stand are based upon how we *currently do
things*, but...

<fo:spoken>Hi Oren, how are you?</fo:spoken>

...really isn't difficult to add is it? I would see the extension of FOs as
easier than CSS as XML lends itself to "bolt-on semantics", although
whether it is desirable to take this approach is another matter. It might
indeed be best to keep FOs for simple formatting, and introduce other
presentation semantics under their own namespace, I really haven't thought
on this matter enough to voice an opinion of my preference. I'd be
interested to know what others think.

What I will say, is that the fact that we can consider whether a given
semantic of presentation should be under FOs, or whether it should have
it's own namespace is a facility that we wont have with CSS.

There's more to style specification than simply block and inline elements
and some formatting parameters.

And in a broader vein when considering matters such as document
presentation we need to start thinking not just how we currently do things,
but how we might like to do them in the future, otherwise all we can hope
to do is rehash what we currently have.

Cheers
     Guy.





xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 03/05/99 06:56:18 AM

To:   xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc:    (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID)
Subject:  Fw: W3C-transformation language petition




Ian Hickson <py8ieh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[SNIP]
>...
>
>What about an aural rendition?
>
>Will XSL be able to cope with alternative (non graphic) media? CSS
>can. This is quite an important issue.

Good question. I'd say CSS is better suited to handle alternative media the
FOs are. FOs are designed around a 2D graphic layout paradigm. In CSS, one
could add new "display" types and their related attributes.
[SNIP]





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