RE: Accessible FOs (was: Re: Transformation + FOs makes abuse easy)

["Jonathan Borden" <jborden@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul Prescod wrote:
>
>
> James Tauber wrote:
> >
> > What would be nice (and I think this is entirely possible with XSL as it
> > stands) is for people to include ICADD SDAFORMs in their FOs.
>
> I agree that this should be possible, but ICADD is designed to be used as
> an architecture: the document type designer is supposed to think these
> things through in advance. In this case the document type designer is the
> XSL WG.
>

	James makes the type of constructive argument that this discussion group
needs. Not being an expert by any means at all in ICADD, but seeing the
important implications for accessability, the suggestion seems to be a very
sensible and doable thing.

	The recent XSLT draft as well as the integration of XSL and XPointer
demonstrates the fact that the WG is either taking the input from the group
or is considering the same issues in parallel. My expectation that these
very important accessability issues will be dealt with in the same fashion.

Jonathan Borden
http://jabr.ne.mediaone.net


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