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 |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: HTML is a formatting/UI languag, Guy_Murphy | Thread | Re: HTML is a formatting/UI languag, Guy_Murphy |
RE: Datachannel XSL (XTL?), Rob Nichols | Date | Re: XML/XSL Demos, Richard Lander |
Month |