Subject: RE: Formatting Objects considered harmful From: DPawson@xxxxxxxxxxx Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 13:33:53 +0100 |
>-----Original Message----- >From: Jonathan Borden wrote: 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. DaveP: What evidence is there for this? Many man-years spent developing accessibility tools for html? And the hope that they might live on in HTML? If (todays) XFO's were classed into abstract classes which could then be subbed into media specific ones (print, braille, audio, web ), then we could reduce the load of authors and script writers. And reduce the effort needed to keep up with the html (or xhtml) extensions that visual presentation takes great delight in. regards, DaveP 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 | Specifying output encoding type in , Yoichiro Hirano |
Re: XSL and Web Native distributed , James Clark | Date | Re: Formatting Objects considered h, Ian Hickson |
Month |