RE: Leventhal's challenge misses the point

Subject: RE: Leventhal's challenge misses the point
From: "Heikki Toivonen" <heikki@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:56:05 +0300
> > There are a huge number of documents that do not and will not need any
> sort
> > of transformations (which is the part that requires scripting in the
> > DOM+CSS+script model).
> I don't quote see this Heikii. Why do static documents requiring no
> transformation require DOM+Script? Surely they only require CSS?

Sorry, my sentence was confusing. As you pointed out, static documents only
need CSS. What I was saying is that if the documents need transformations
that falls into the land of scripting.

> > Interactivity is something you cannot achieve without scripting, even if
> you
> > use XSL.
> Interactivity isn't realy a styling issue. It's and XML/DOM issue. If the
> user agent has an XML DOM that supports interactivity then FOs can be as
> interactive as any other mark-up. For instance, IE5 supports interactive
> HTML at present, so if you deliver HTML to IE5 from XSL you have
> interactive
> formatting objects (with a small f and o :). There's no reason why XSL FOs
> can't be interactive.
> I see this as a DOM issue, not an XSL issue. Yes there is work to be done
> *between* the two WGs, but it isn't an inherant problem with XSL any more
> than it was with HTML, or CSS.

Umm.. I do not really see HTML as being interactive. You need scripting to
make it interactive.

Sure you could make FO's interactive, but writing scripts to make FO's
interactive seems like a really silly thing to do because they do not hold
the original semantic information. Writing scripts for the logical structure
makes a lot more sense.

Take for example a script that shows the context where your mouse cursor is:
for FO's you will have stuff like FONT and for logical content you will have
PART-NUMBER etc. I'd think unless you are learning/debugging your FO's you'd
only be interested in the logical structure.

> I take your point well, that your views are personal. I think some can be
> forgiven for interpreting a company interest at work though when Michael
> starts making reference to his crack 'Zilla development team in
> his initial
> challenge. This wasn't as part of a discrete communication, but a very
> public declaration of war.

Agreed. Btw, Michael did not really ask his crack team's permission to
volunteer us for the job ;) But I have no fear. Even though I've learned a
great deal about XSL and found good things about it I stil think Michael's
points stand true for the most part. I do not believe we will have a
consensus on this at this time, which is a pity. History will tell,
hopefully. In the meantime, the Web suffers. Focused attempts would get a
lot more done.

> Personally Heikii, I believe that there is a company interest that is
> abundantly clear.
> ::shrug:: Personally I think such interests are understandable,
> and what is
> more appropriate. I just prefer such interests to be tabled clearly rather
> than under the banner of concern for the Web.

If there was absolutely no gain whatsovever in what we are doing right now
nobody would bother. Everybody has their own interests at stake. So again, I
agree for the most part. Just not the last sentence. If you really think our
concern for the Web is just a marketing gimmick we have failed miserably in
our writings.

  Heikki Toivonen

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread