Subject: Re: W3C-transformation language petition From: Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 17:22:38 +0000 |
Hi. Of course you can simply add either new media specific elements or a new namespace. There's no reason not to have... <xsl:template match="abstract"> <fo:block> <xsl:value-of /> <fo:block> <fo:spoken> The document abstract is, <xsl:value-of /> <fo:spoken> </xsl:template> ...or use another namespace for the speach. It's up to the user agent as to whether or not it will support speach. There doesn't *have* to be multiple stylesheets, this is simply the authors choice. It's would be possible possible for a single stylesheet to produce presentable material for any number of media. Again whether this where a good way to do it would be up to the author. There doesn't *have* to be a sepearate transformation process for every media type, there just needs to be a boundry between the various media elements, and namespaces are probably the easiest way to do this. Cheers Guy. xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 03/11/99 12:24:46 AM To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cc: (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID) Subject: Re: W3C-transformation language petition On Thu, 4 Mar 1999, Chris Maden wrote: >> Will XSL be able to cope with alternative (non graphic) media? CSS >> can. This is quite an important issue. > Short answer: XSL must because of the W3C's commitment to the WAI. > It's a procedural requirement. Good. > But consider the ability to structure the formatted document, > providing HTML-<object>-like sets of alternatives, or audio and > visual formatting objects with specified relationships to each > other. Hmm. FOs (in their current form) are rather firmly linked to visual media (page, screen, projection), just like in CSS the 'color', 'border', 'font', etc..., properties are firmly linked to the visual media. To get comprehensive styling for multiple media (aural, visual, tactile) would require multiple sets of FOs. For example, in visual media a comment may be rendered as a sidebar, while in aural media it may be rendered as a little audio cue which links to the actual comment at the end of the audio stream. This cannot be done easily using a single set of FOs (indeed, that is one of the problems with CSS: there is no transformation step). The only possible solutions I see are: a. Have one XSL stylesheet for each media type. b. Have an @media equivalent (this is mentioned in the current draft). In either case, the document needs a separate transformation step for each media type. I have serious doubts that authors will generally write an XSL stylesheet for more than one media. This is a problem. >> Quite seriously, what is it that in the opinion of FO proponents is >> missing from CSS? (Other than tree transformation, obviously.) > Structured output is a big thing. Yes, but that is tree transformation. I am talking only about the FO part now. I fully admit that CSS, to be effective, needs a transformation language to go with it. XSL-transformation can be this language. > XML syntax is ideal for representing crosslinked trees, and a > formatted document is full of such relationships (page number > dependencies, allocating sidebar space on the screen, "above" or > "below" conditional text). Absolutely. But this kind of thing is out of the scope of CSS, and is not what FOs are (AFAICT) going to be used for. -- Ian Hickson U+2642 U+2651 U+262E U+2603 U+263A XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: lambda was RE: W3C-transformati, Didier PH Martin | Thread | XSL Examples available, James Tauber |
License???, Didier PH Martin | Date | RE: lambda was RE: W3C-transformati, Didier PH Martin |
Month |