Subject: Re: HTML is a formatting/UI language was: RE: Formatting Objects considered harmful
From: Chris Maden <crism@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 10:04:04 -0400 (EDT)
|
[Håkon Wium Lie]
> Paul Prescod wrote:
> > Transmitting XHTML probably does not make sense when we could
> > instead get the client to do the transformation. I think we can
> > all agree on that.
>
> Yes. But how will you make existing browsers perform
> transformations?
The same way that existing (pre-v5) browsers will read the dangerous
FOs: not at all.
For browsers supporting XML/XSL, deliver semantic XML and a
presentational stylesheet.
For older browsers, deliver semantic HTML.
It is possible to deliver presentational-only XML (i.e., FOs) to a new
client, but since it can handle client-side transformation, why
bother?
I feel that you're raising valid concerns about a case that will not
occur very frequently at all, since in any browser susceptible to such
abuse, there are much better ways of delivering information to it.
-Chris
--
<!NOTATION SGML.Geek PUBLIC "-//Anonymous//NOTATION SGML Geek//EN">
<!ENTITY crism PUBLIC "-//O'Reilly//NONSGML Christopher R. Maden//EN"
"<URL>http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/crism/ <TEL>+1.617.499.7487
<USMAIL>90 Sherman Street, Cambridge, MA 02140 USA" NDATA SGML.Geek>
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
|
Cart
