Subject: Re: Transformation + FOs makes abuse easy From: "John E. Simpson" <simpson@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 23:42:08 -0400 |
At 02:44 PM 4/28/99 -0500, Paul Prescod wrote: >...most of us do not have the resources to set up a completely >separate stream of development for aural interfaces. Instead, XFOs should >be designed to degrade gracefully for non visual interfaces (as HTML is). > >XSL should make accessible design easier than it is today, not harder. To that I say amen. But (not trying to be difficult, simply haven't wrapped my head around this side of the problem yet) in what way is HTML "designed to degrade gracefully for non-visual interfaces"? (What does it mean for an FO vocabulary to "degrade"?) And what is it about XSL formatting objects that makes them less, er, gracefully degradable (understanding of course that the FO portion of the spec is about as in-flux as it's possible to be, short of NOTE status)? You've spoken to this point several times, I know, Paul, but always (if I recall correctly) in terms like "higher level of abstraction" and (as here) "degradability." I think I'm just seeking an explanation, at a *lower* level of abstraction, of all these higher abstractions. :) ========================================================== John E. Simpson | The secret of eternal youth simpson@xxxxxxxxxxx | is arrested development. http://www.flixml.org | -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Transformation + FOs makes abus, Paul Prescod | Thread | Re: Transformation + FOs makes abus, Paul Prescod |
XSL toolbar for Homesite, Jonathan Borden | Date | Re: namespaces, radha |
Month |