Re: Transformation + FOs makes abuse easy

Subject: Re: Transformation + FOs makes abuse easy
From: "John E. Simpson" <simpson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 23:42:08 -0400
At 02:44 PM 4/28/99 -0500, Paul Prescod wrote:
>...most of us do not have the resources to set up a completely
>separate stream of development for aural interfaces. Instead, XFOs should
>be designed to degrade gracefully for non visual interfaces (as HTML is).
>
>XSL should make accessible design easier than it is today, not harder.

To that I say amen. But (not trying to be difficult, simply haven't wrapped
my head around this side of the problem yet) in what way is HTML "designed
to degrade gracefully for non-visual interfaces"? (What does it mean for an
FO vocabulary to "degrade"?) And what is it about XSL formatting objects
that makes them less, er, gracefully degradable (understanding of course
that the FO portion of the spec is about as in-flux as it's possible to be,
short of NOTE status)?

You've spoken to this point several times, I know, Paul, but always (if I
recall correctly) in terms like "higher level of abstraction" and (as here)
"degradability." I think I'm just seeking an explanation, at a *lower*
level of abstraction, of all these higher abstractions. :)
==========================================================
John E. Simpson            | The secret of eternal youth
simpson@xxxxxxxxxxx        | is arrested development.
http://www.flixml.org      |  -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth


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


Current Thread