Liam R. E. Quin wrote:

 > >   1 there must be a specification for aural formatting objects
 > >   2 there must be implementations of aural formatting objects
 > >   3 the fact that the user has an aural client must be known to the server
 > >   4 all web sites must install XTL sheets to transform content into
 > >     aural formatting objects
 > 
 > I'm with you right up to No. 4, the fantasy part :-(

I agree with you, #4 is not realistic. That's why I don't think
accessibility can be preserved if formatting object are generated on
the server side.

 > I am opposed to splitting XSL into two parts because I think Microsoft
 > will implement one part and Netscape the other.

Perhaps. Certainly, if XSL was atomic, the issue at hand would be a
non-issue.

 > I do understand your motivation, and I think it's a good and
 > important one.  I don't think we have an answer yet.

Thanks, that's a very honest statement.

-h&kon

Håkon Wium Lie             http://www.operasoftware.com/people/howcome
howcome@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                      simply a better browser



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