Re: Formatting Objects considered harmful

[Paul Prescod <paul@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jonathan Borden wrote:
> 
> 
>     XML -> (xslt) -> XFO -> (xslt) -> XHTML + CSS (???) and get the exact
> same aural rendering, assuming that the XML -> XFO xslt doesn't terribly
> degrade the XML semantics. Since aural rendering in general will depend on a
> reasonable: XML -> XHTML+CSS transformation, what is the difference if there
> is an intermediate step which contains XFO? If I can't do an XFO ->
> XHTML+CSS transformation it seems that there wound be something badly wrong
> with XFO. 

That is exactly Hakon's point. A well-constructed XHTML+CSS document
contains abstract information that *cannot* be expressed in an XFO
document without resorting to non-standard conventions and extensions. The
reverse is *not true*.  There is no abstract information that a FO has
that HTML does not suport. As Hakon said in the first message of the
thread, from an accessibility point of view we need to move up the
abstraction ladder, not down it.

I don't see why people are fighting so vehemently against a language that
would have HTML-level abstractions and support XFO-level presentation but
it seems to me to be the right solution.

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

Company spokeswoman Lana Simon stressed that Interactive 
Yoda is not a Furby. Well, not exactly. 

"This is an interactive toy that utilizes Furby technology," 
Simon said. "It will react to its surroundings and will talk." 
  - http://www.wired.com/news/news/culture/story/19222.html


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