Subject: Re: HTML is a formatting/UI language was: RE: Formatting Objects considered harmful From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 14:50:18 +0200 (MET DST) |
Paul Prescod wrote: > HTML is at about the right point in the abstraction->rendition spectrum to > allow braille, TTYs and other non-GUI interfaces to render information in > a manner compatible with GUI interfaces. We cannot make a global language > much more abstract HTML (though footnotes, headers, footers, etc. would be > nice). We cannot make a multiple-media language much less abstract than > HTML. > > Håkon's point is that formatting objects are less abstract than HTML and > are thus less portable. This is well stated. > Transmitting XHTML probably does not make sense when we could instead get > the client to do the transformation. I think we can all agree on that. Yes. But how will you make existing browsers perform transformations? > Transforming to XHTML+STYLE-based CSS on the client side probably also > does not make sense because the STYLE attribute is too granular to be > generated by XSL. Do we agree? No. If you or your software can concatenate "12" and "pt", you/it should also be able to concatenate "font-size:", "12", "pt", and ";". > Formatting objects (as currently defined) have the concrete limitation > that they are probably not compatible with non-GUI rendering environments. > (I'm no Braille expert -- is this right or not?) Visual formatting objects bring braille a decade back to the "screen reader" state. -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: HTML is a formatting/UI languag, James Tauber | Thread | RE: HTML is a formatting/UI languag, Jonathan Borden |
Re: Formatting Objects considered h, Håkon Wium Lie | Date | Re: Formatting Objects considered h, Håkon Wium Lie |
Month |