Subject: RE: Formatting Objects considered harmful From: DPawson@xxxxxxxxxxx Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 13:53:43 +0100 |
James C wrote: >This issue here is whether to send (X)HTML or arbitrary XML to the >client. That's a reasonable issue, and I think there are good arguments >for keeping the XML that you send to the client close to HTML, the argument of sending xhtml (as a near approximation of html) is reasonable if the (x)html is clean, has no java /jscript, is not using tables for formatting and 101 other constraints which detract from the accessibility of an html file. Yes James, send the source xml file. Its a cleaner start than html. And if the stylesheet can be used to create an aural / braille / plain text stylesheet then so much the better. the two as a pair (xml plus xsl) would surely be a better starting point than the ..... that people deliver as html these days. If you want to find out just how accessible html is, find a colleague using access technology (even good $1K stuff) and point it at some of your favourite sites. Where visual appeal wins out, accessibility often suffers inadvertently. That might rid you of the view that all html is accessible, hence a good target in an XML world. It certainly did for me, I felt a right pratt. It would appear that we can't persuade every web author to generate accessible html, so lets make a good start on XML with xsl doing the things we levered into html whilst keeping up with the fashions in presentational attributes. regards, DaveP XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Specifying output encoding type in , Yoichiro Hirano | Thread | Re: Formatting Objects considered h, Guy_Murphy |
Re: Formatting Objects considered h, Ian Hickson | Date | Ken Holman's XSL Article, Betty L. Harvey |
Month |