Subject: Re: Formatting Objects considered harmful From: "Ray" <ray@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 11:51:14 -0400 |
Am I totally crazy to believe that the real way XSL will be used on the Web is that Web sites who wish to do so will provide 2 or more versions of a document? Right now, many Web sites have links like "Click here for Print copy" or "Click here to email to a friend", where they strip out all the presentation and graphic junk. I believe future websites will do the following: 1) Detect if the User Agent supports XSL/FO. If the User Agent is known not to support FO fully or correctly, or not support XML/XSL at all, then the server will translate to HTML+CSS as best as possible. 2) If the User Agent supports XSL/FO natively, send back XML + XSL to be rendered. Sure, some sites are going to send back FO only, maybe to increase performance (1 hit required, instead of 2), or to prevent ad banners from being stripped by a client style sheet. However, I don't see how this is any worse than the current output of Frontpage/DreamWeaver/NetObjects Fusion. Just what are the semantics in HTML anyway? Does anyone really use H1/H2/etc properly? Most people seem to use them as a quick way to bold/font size something. Most web pages today seem to resemble a mass of nested tables with spacer gifs and width/height control to perserve layout. How can XML+XSL+FO provide less semantics than this? Atleast with XML and XSL, if the web site *wishes* to provide semantic data in the future, they can easily do it. Whereas, with heavily table-ized HTML, their data may not easily be retargetable. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Formatting Objects considered h, Håkon Wium Lie | Thread | Re: Formatting Objects considered h, Guy_Murphy |
Re: XSL is difficult to...?, Duane Nickull | Date | Re: Formatting Objects considered h, Simon St.Laurent |
Month |