Subject: Re: Formatting Objects considered harmful From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 00:35:46 +0200 (MET DST) |
Liam R. E. Quin wrote: > > 1 there must be a specification for aural formatting objects > > 2 there must be implementations of aural formatting objects > > 3 the fact that the user has an aural client must be known to the server > > 4 all web sites must install XTL sheets to transform content into > > aural formatting objects > > I'm with you right up to No. 4, the fantasy part :-( I agree with you, #4 is not realistic. That's why I don't think accessibility can be preserved if formatting object are generated on the server side. > I am opposed to splitting XSL into two parts because I think Microsoft > will implement one part and Netscape the other. Perhaps. Certainly, if XSL was atomic, the issue at hand would be a non-issue. > I do understand your motivation, and I think it's a good and > important one. I don't think we have an answer yet. Thanks, that's a very honest statement. -h&kon Håkon Wium Lie http://www.operasoftware.com/people/howcome howcome@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx simply a better browser XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: Formatting Objects considered h, Didier PH Martin | Thread | Re: Formatting Objects considered h, Paul Prescod |
Re: Formatting Objects considered h, Håkon Wium Lie | Date | Re: Formatting Objects considered h, David Carlisle |
Month |