[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Fw: About the style processing instruction

Subject: Fw: About the style processing instruction
From: "Oren Ben-Kiki" <oren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 12:06:56 +0200
sounds force download
Didier PH Martin <martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


>Here is essence of the proposal about a certain usage of the "media"
>property. This is not a big thing but at least an active effort to resolve
a
>concrete problem...


I'm a bit confused about the proposed semantics of the media property. I
first took it to specify the format of the output document. You said:

"XSL and CSS and DSSSL style engines, may allow an output format choice. To
fully support such capacity, the media property can be used to set the
desired output type."

I took this to mean that the XSL engine would actually create a document of
the specified type as output - e.g., a valid TeX file - instead of an XML
<fo:*> document (which would be the default). This has many implications:
specifying other XML languages (e.g., MathML), non-XML languages (e.g. TeX,
Rtf); shouldn't the format be specified as a mime type in this case? How
does this relate to the result-ns attribute? Etc.

But then you said:

"If the current rendering engine do not support such formats, it should
degrade to something
it can do".

So I revised my understanding; I took it to mean that the XSL engine should
create <fo:*> elements as usual and then translate the <fo:*> elements into
the specified type - and possibly display the document using the appropriate
back-end for this type - if it can; and do the best it can otherwise.
Shouldn't such decisions be left to the user which invoked the XSL
processor? After all, he knows which back-ends he has (Word, Adobe Acrobat
or a DVI viewer) and which one he is interested in... And the <fo:*>
document is identical in all cases. Or am I missing something?

You then said:

"The media property can specify the output device (print, screen etc...) and
the
rendering model. The rendering model could be expressed by a format like DXF
and thus be implicit or explicitly mentioned by a general term like "3D"
..."

And I'm totally lost. How can the media attribute specify the rendering
model? This is fixed by the <fo:*> language. Do you mean that the <fo:*>
language can be extended with "some macros specific to 3D" so that it would
be possible to use the same output document for print, screen and _3D_? And
similarly for any other model we might come up with - e.g., visualization
graphs, sounds, force-feedback, ...? Just reconciling the 2D <fo:*> model
with a 3D model would be one hell of an achievement. Shouldn't this be
better left to a different stylesheet per rendering model "family" (2D, 3D,
...) - presuming an XML language is defined for each (e.g. VRML for 3D)?

So... What exactly should "media" mean?

Share & Enjoy,

    Oren Ben-Kiki


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


Current Thread

PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!

Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.