Subject: RE: Formatting Objects considered harmful From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 23:03:25 -0400 |
Paul Prescod wrote: > > 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. > So you are saying that it is possible to create a transformation which takes an arbitrary XFO -> XHTML and back i.e. 1) exists <t,t'> for all (a) such that XFO(a) -t-> XHTML(a) -t'-> XFO(a) but not an arbitrary XHTML -> XFO and back i.e. 2) not exists <u,u'> for all (b) such that XHTML(b) -u-> XFO(b) -u'-> XHTML(b) In this case, the essence of the argument is that XHTML+CSS is a better formatting/UI language than XFO, that XHTML+CSS can do everything that XFO can do and more. If so, from my position as a total formatting dummy, why does XFO exist? > 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. > To be honest, I don't personally have a need for XFO, as XSLT allows transformation of arbitrary XML into XHTML+CSS, which serves my needs perfectly. It appears that some people feel that HTML+CSS is limiting for things such as high-quality printing etc (things which I've not been involved with and have no personal opinion on), and if this is true, XFO may find a niche in these environments. My strong preference is to contain semantics in XML documents (arbitrary XML documents) which are converted to presentation via XSLT. In some cases one might even argue that DSSSL, officially allowing Scheme 'extensions' is superior to an XSLT devoid of the ability to officially call out to JavaScript, Java etc(as every implementation I've seen allows). The *only* reason at least I have argued about this is the implication that a)XHTML is equal to arbitrary XML for representation of semantic information and hence b) there is no need to XSLT on the client. My summary of this long argument is that you are saying that XHTML is a better presentation/UI language than XFO, one important reason being that XHTML operates better in aural environments. This supports my inclination to continue transmitting arbitrary XML to the client for XSLT into XHTML and rendering by the browser. Jonathan Borden http://jabr.ne.mediaone.net XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Formatting Objects considered h, Paul Prescod | Thread | Re: Formatting Objects considered h, Paul Prescod |
Does anyone know when XSL1.0 will b, motoki | Date | Re: Formatting Objects considered h, James Clark |
Month |