Re: HTML is a formatting/UI language was: RE: Formatting Obj

Subject: Re: HTML is a formatting/UI language was: RE: Formatting Obj
From: Paul Prescod <paul@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 10:04:33 -0500
Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> Don't we face here an issue whereby it would be mroe appropriate to have
> either a different namespace for producing say aural "renderable" output
> that might be produced along side the FOs, or the use of different
> stylesheets for different media. Specifying a different stylesheet PI for
> each media covered would seem to be best.

In a perfect world, that would be ideal. In this world, people and
companies are not thoughtful enough to make separate considerations for
the blind. I think that the best way to get people to support accessible
documents is to make it the path of least resistance. I mean even if an
author was willing to create aural style sheets, would they really do the
necessary testing 

> Now that we have managed to seperate data from presentation, able to
> provide differing views of the data as appropriate, if we look for generic
> catch-all presentation languages don't we run back into the arms of some of
> the probelms we faced with HTML.... does pretty much everything, but
> nothing very well?

Maybe. I can't say for sure.

It might be the case that the sophisticated medium-specific formatting
information can be layered on top of the generic stuff in attributes etc.

If I am wrong on that issue, I would still argue that the "default"
formatting objects should be accessible and the sophisticated formatting
ones should be separated out for experts.

> As a side note.... most people browsing the Web are most concerned with the
> appearence of the Web app they are using and the functionality provided....
> not the source code used to render it, and I beleive that it is not worth
> while sacrificing the functionality provided by clean domain specific FOs
> (or other media specific objects), so that people have a better time of
> viewing source. If one is that concerned about seeing the original data one
> can go fetch it.

I'm not sure what this all means. The source is supposed to be sent across
and transformed on the client side, right?

> It is also easy to forget that we will have XHTML, and we already have
> XML+CSS, and nobody is suggesting that XSL is a direct competitor for these
> across all solutions. It is likely that most Web sites will present in
> either XHTML or XML+CSS. If presentation semantic is required as part of a
> solution there are already means for implimenting this. If however this is
> either not a concern, or the richist presentational expression possible is
> a requisite, then I feel that FOs are absolutely the way to go, not a
> watered down formatting semantic.

Can you please be precise on what formatting objects give you that HTML
does not and cannot?

-- 
 Paul Prescod  - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself
 http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco

"The Excursion [Sport Utility Vehicle] is so large that it will come
equipped with adjustable pedals to fit smaller drivers and sensor 
devices that warn the driver when he or she is about to back into a
Toyota or some other object." -- Dallas Morning News


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


Current Thread