Re: HTML is a formatting/UI language was: RE: Formatting Obj
Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > Don't we face here an issue whereby it would be mroe appropriate to have > either a different namespace for producing say aural "renderable" output > that might be produced along side the FOs, or the use of different > stylesheets for different media. Specifying a different stylesheet PI for > each media covered would seem to be best. In a perfect world, that would be ideal. In this world, people and companies are not thoughtful enough to make separate considerations for the blind. I think that the best way to get people to support accessible documents is to make it the path of least resistance. I mean even if an author was willing to create aural style sheets, would they really do the necessary testing > Now that we have managed to seperate data from presentation, able to > provide differing views of the data as appropriate, if we look for generic > catch-all presentation languages don't we run back into the arms of some of > the probelms we faced with HTML.... does pretty much everything, but > nothing very well? Maybe. I can't say for sure. It might be the case that the sophisticated medium-specific formatting information can be layered on top of the generic stuff in attributes etc. If I am wrong on that issue, I would still argue that the "default" formatting objects should be accessible and the sophisticated formatting ones should be separated out for experts. > As a side note.... most people browsing the Web are most concerned with the > appearence of the Web app they are using and the functionality provided.... > not the source code used to render it, and I beleive that it is not worth > while sacrificing the functionality provided by clean domain specific FOs > (or other media specific objects), so that people have a better time of > viewing source. If one is that concerned about seeing the original data one > can go fetch it. I'm not sure what this all means. The source is supposed to be sent across and transformed on the client side, right? > It is also easy to forget that we will have XHTML, and we already have > XML+CSS, and nobody is suggesting that XSL is a direct competitor for these > across all solutions. It is likely that most Web sites will present in > either XHTML or XML+CSS. If presentation semantic is required as part of a > solution there are already means for implimenting this. If however this is > either not a concern, or the richist presentational expression possible is > a requisite, then I feel that FOs are absolutely the way to go, not a > watered down formatting semantic. Can you please be precise on what formatting objects give you that HTML does not and cannot? -- Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco "The Excursion [Sport Utility Vehicle] is so large that it will come equipped with adjustable pedals to fit smaller drivers and sensor devices that warn the driver when he or she is about to back into a Toyota or some other object." -- Dallas Morning News XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
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