Re: Formatting Objects considered harmful

[Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx]

Hi Paul.

My apologise. Maybe I need to go back over the archive and make sure Ive
got things straight in my own head. I *thought* it was being suggested that
XHTML+CSS was a better deliverable than XFOs as XFOs where open to possible
abuse, and that XHTML+CSS supported aural presentation in a convenient
fashion and maintained semantic value.

Cheers

     Guy.





xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 04/28/99 06:54:53 PM

To:   xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc:    (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID)
Subject:  Re: Formatting Objects considered harmful




Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> The problem with your solution is what needs to be "told" to the site
> impared is often not the same as what is presented on screen. Therefore
> unless you split visual presentation from aural presentation you cannot
> actualy *cater* for the visualy impared, you can only give them the
> unstrctured, often gibberish that is the aural interpretation of the Web
> site.... ie. a second best often useless fallback.... anybody want to
argue
> that this is what the visualy impared deserve, or that infering aural
> presentation from the bulk of Web sites meets their needs?
You are attacking a straw man. I don't think that anybody is claiming that
there should be no aural presentation objects.






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