Subject: RE: HTML is a formatting/UI language From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 00:48:56 -0400 |
Håkon Wium Lie wrote: > > How would you render this in HTML+CSS, and maintain the > 'semantic' content? > > Here's one example: > > <div class="person" xmlns="urn:hl7" UID=".." SSN="..."> > <div class="n"> > <span class="FirstName">John</SPAN> > <span class="LastName">Smith</SPAN> > </div> > <div class="a" type="home"><SPAN CLASS="Address1">... ...</DIV> > <span class="DOB" dt:dt="iso...">... > <span class="insurance" ID="..."> > <span class="business" role="Insuror">...</SPAN> > ... > </span> > <div class="person" role="Provider">... > <div class="person" role="EmergencyContact"> ... > <div class="diagnosis" CPT="...">... > <div class="medication" ...> > > I understand if you don't want to use this format internally, but when > shipping across the Web, my example can be shown in 100 million > browsers -- including aural ones -- yours can't. And they both contain > your original semantics. You can programatically convert my document > back to yours. This is already starting to look painful and this version is simplified. A 'full fidelity' representation (yes this does mean validating) would be even more painful, and I picked a simplified example to start. To me, there exists some sort of factor which is roughly the ratio of semantic content/number of tokens. Yes this can be 'displayed' in a browser, but not the way I want it to be displayed. I am replacing custom client application with dynamic browser applications, using the well known model-view-controller paradigm, the document is the model, the view is the transformed HTML and the controller is the javascript/XSL containing frame. > > There is a small cost involved in the server-side conversion, yes. But > you can still do the client side processing since all your data is > still there. > > What you gain is accessibility. > That's a short term detail. Assuming all 100 million browsers understood XSL, I can transform XML into HTML+CSS on the client so the only argument against client side validation is that not everyone can do it. With that logic we'd still be using VT-100's (and many of us are!) We need to be in this for the long term correct way to do things and separating content from presentation remains a good basic rule. Jonathan Borden http://jabr.ne.mediaone.net XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: HTML is a formatting/UI languag, Paul Prescod | Thread | Re: Formatting Objects considered h, Paul Prescod |
Re: Grand Unification Theory, Paul Prescod | Date | Re: Formatting Objects considered h, Guy_Murphy |
Month |