Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: XSLT vs. CSS (Re: Indexing)
 Compatible, not compliant. The case is still that if the author must strictly specify the end product, he has to resort to FFF or massive coordination. I understand the problem of the upmarket product and that is a reason some of us objected to the US government blindly accepting the so-called "open specifications" in the same slots as open standards. The owner of the spec can still make it prohibitively expensive to implement even if it is freely implementable given they control the definition of the extensions that make upmarket products reasonable. Going on a related tangent because I keep seeing references to the RSS/nEcho debates and mostly, the "Dave is an evil SOB references" when I have to really wonder if projects like nEcho can't by precedent set up bigger problems: I counsel those stepping into projects such as nEcho to be be very careful and aware of ownership and control issues. From what I read, the RSS situation became what it did as much because its principal in trying to avoid the problem of co-opting found it necessary to co-opt. We should be wise about this as a community. Damming Dave for trying to do what he considered 'the right thing' is strange although reading the contexts of the exchanges, I see how that pattern emerged. It is like the MicrosoftParanoids. MS came to dominate because the early web builders made that so easy for them to do. Witless fielding. No slam on Ruby; I don't know the guy, but if I were working wikis for projects like that, I would want some strong legal rights language with principal's and ***their employer's names*** on it that strictly specified the rights of disposition, extension, and so forth. When this was faced in VRML they wisely moved the specification to an ISO standard with a partnership between the consortium and ISO. The early work was done online and there was an open war for control. Smart people prevailed because reasonable strategies were presented, but the pattern was very predictable. I speculate that perhaps wiki projects such as these might take a page from how Hollywood independents set up projects: a company of sorts is declared for the duration of the project and all rights are declared in advance. Given how much some believe that process is bad and constrains them unnecessarily, but on the other hand, without some sort of vehicle it will come down entirely to personalities, some thing simple and in the middle is needed. Note that the counter example of SAX doesn't always analogize well. For co-opting to be worthwhile, there have to be advantages to owning the product. SAX is one of those technologies where there is little advantage to owning it. There can be some advantages to building its competitor, but those are technical advantages, not marketing advantages. I think content languages are not of that ilk. There are definite advantages, as PDF, Flash etc,. demonstrate to owning these. RSS/nEcho fall into that category. len -----Original Message----- From: Dave Pawson [mailto:dpawson@n...] At 14:09 10/07/2003 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: I note that >PDF is zoomable, fonts are specifiable, and >nothing stops an author from building a document >that is WAI-compatible. Not in pdf Len. They keep trying. Our experience (www.rnib.org.uk) is that blind folk still can't get it. ....... Unless they buy one of the adobe upmarket products. regards DaveP 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
