Re: Leventhal's challenge misses the point

Subject: Re: Leventhal's challenge misses the point
From: "Guy Murphy" <guy-murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 20:21:18 +0100
Hi Heikki.

Lets take a *very* simple example of a dynamic document in a browser. A

You mouseOver something in a browser, and its font color changes, and
changes back on mouseOut.

What is the event handler bound to, the original XML element, or the
formatting object being rendered? It is the rendered formatting object that
has the mouse traveling over it.

How does transforming an XML document with DOM+Script make any difference to
this issue than transforming with XSL?

My existing playing with XSL takes the form of transforming to mainly HTML,
or custom formatting objects defined with MS HTCs. dynamic interaction in
this case takes placed with the *resulting* document. And I believe the same
would be the case if I where transforming with DOM+Script.

If my application requires access to the original semantics then I must map
those semantics trhough the transformation, which is a trivial matter.

How semantics are mapped is application specific, and must be part of the
application. In a given application 3 resulting elements might all map back
to 1 source element. There can be one-to-many and many-to-one relationships

You talk about keeping script to the logical structure of the XML. This
structure may not be appropriate to the application. The nature of
transformation is that we create new logic structures out of existing one,
that are more appropriate to our needs. In a given application I may
transform a given XML record(s) into two [or more] views, one for
displaying, and one for working with [with script], with mapping between all
three as appropriate to the aplpication.

This is why I believe that FO semantics are a "good thing", as they
represent a logical structure appropriate for display. If I need to map a
BLOCK element back to source elements I can do so, with appropriate context
using attributes.

You are right that we require script for significant interaction with a
document. I have always supported the fact that DOM+Script is necessary. How
we use script, and where script is appropriate is where we start to differ.

I don't want to build large application blocks of script. I personally want
to use script for discrete areas of functionality. My personal ideal would
be for something like HyperText Components, which I believe fit perfectly
with XSL, in the form of dynamicFOs that encapsulate their own

The thing is Heikii, that I am not saying that sticking with DOM+Script for
everything is wrong if that is your preffered methodology. I am just saying
that I find XSL more appropriate for a section of a Web application.


----- Original Message -----
From: Heikki Toivonen <heikki@xxxxxxxx>
To: <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 1999 9:56 AM
Subject: RE: Leventhal's challenge misses the point
> 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
> makes a lot more sense.
> --
>   Heikki Toivonen
>  XSL-List info and archive:

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread