Re: Formatting Objects considered harmful

[Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx]

Hi Hakon.

Firstly youo are advocating that H1 is a desirable formatting semantic in
your example.... or do I misunderstand you? You document does seem to be
advocating HTML for format.

You further this by stating...

<quote>
The difference between example 1 and example 2 is one of semantics vs.
presentation. When transformed into HTML, the semantics of the XML is
preserved since the H1 element is globally recognized as being a headline
of level 1.
 When transformed into XFO, semantics is removed and replaced by
presentational properties.
</quote>

Suggesting that it is desirable to preserve data emantic into the
formatting.... why? If you want to see the data semantic go look at the
data.

And again for example 3 you state...

<quote>
The result contains both semantics and presentation. This is a good thing.
</quote>

Again... why?

I'm sorry but you definately seem to suggest that the HTML tag has
something to offer the formatting.... what? It seems to me to only confuse
the issue.
For rendering decoration this is not relevent information to carry over.

The rest of your document seems based on the tenuous assumption that people
 will abuse XFOs and opt for them over eithere HTML+CSS or XML+CSS

Why would people do such a thing? What advantages does hand coded XFO have
over HTML+CSS or XML+CSS.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe your problem domain is significant enought
to declare XSL Formatting Objects dangerous.

In turn I would suggest that producing HTML from XML is dangerous as it
forces a semantic upon the formatting that may well not be relevent.

And you're suggestion that XFO are a danger to device independence over
HTML!!!.... I really don't want to go there.

Finally. The answer to any percieved danger of loosing semantic....... If
you *must* preserve semantic not expressed by XFO, then the probable
solution to your problem is transformation to XML+CSS. XFO does not present
itself as a catch-all solution, and does not seek to replace CSS. *If your
result requires a specific semantic, go find that semantic*. In most cases
however, for the purposes of rendering in browsers certianly, I think XFOs
cannot be labeled fairly as dangerous.

As a side note.... As has already been discussed on this list, the model
being drawn up for XSL output is potentialy a very strong one for multiple
media formats, as there is no reason why FOs can't address visual
formatting, and introduce new namespaces for new media....

<aural:speech>Hello World</aural:speech>

.....or....

<window:frame colsebutton="true">
     <window:title>What's New</window:title>
     <window:content>
          ....some content here...
     </window:content>
</window:frame>

I fail to see what HTML is going to offer here that is superior by way of
semantics or otherwise.

....the point being that in breaking away from HTML we can now decide opon
semantics appropriate to the domain, whether XSL:FOs or XUL. Not all
the decisions have been made yet as to the best way to organise the
semantics for this, but broad consensus would seem to be that HTML is
most definately *not* the way to do it.

Cheers
     Guy.
Points that I feel issue could be taken with...

<quote>
A Web of XFO documents can be compared to a Web of HTML documents with only
 FONT and BR tags.
</quote>

Small point, but I think worth noting that FONT and BR tags do not produce
tree formatting.... I think comparing XFO to DIVs and SPANs would have
addressed the issue better.

<quote>
Unfortunately, when transforming documents into XFO, all semantics is
removed and only the human presentation is left. Moreover, the presentation
 is
tied to a certain output media (which most likely is visual).
</quote>

No reason for XFOs to be tied to any one media.

Yes the data semantics are removed, and replaced with formatting semantics
for rendering. This does not suggest no semantics, simply semantics
appropriate to the domain. If you want to see the data semantics, go look
at the data.

Cheers

     Guy.





xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 04/19/99 10:03:45 PM

To:   xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc:    (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID)
Subject:  Re: Formatting Objects considered harmful




Guy_Murphy wrote:
 > To my mind the author is propegating a dangerous misconception of his
own.
 >
 > He is confusig data semantics with formatting semantics, The example he
 > gives is a very bad one... H1 may say a lot in terms of data semantic
 > (outside the HTML world even this is highly questionable, but I'll let
that
 > dog sleep), but it says zero in terms of formatting semantic. What does
H1
 > bring to formatting?
Nothing, I agree with you that HTML doesn't describe formatting --
that's why CSS was developed. What part of the paper [1] made you
think otherwise?
[1] http://www.operasoftware.com/people/howcome/1999/foch.html
-h&kon
H?kon 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






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