Re: W3C-transformation language petition

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