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

Re: Formatting Objects considered harmful

Subject: Re: Formatting Objects considered harmful
From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 14:49:42 +0200 (MET DST)
definition howcome
Stephen Deach wrote:

 > This whole debate seems to miss several key points:
 >  1.) Stripping the original semantics is NOT ALWAYS harmful:
 >      a.) Storing any derived form of original content
 >          that strips the semantic meaning MAY be harmful. If one
 >          actually needs the original semantics, it probably is harmful.

Agree.

 >      b.) Conversely, almost all books contain significant derived information.
 >          The editing and filtering (authoring) process often ADDS value,
 >          yet it clearly strips all the original semantics.

The loss of semantics during a book's editing/proof-reading process is
a bug, not a feature. I have recently completed such a process and
insisted that the publisher retained semantics in all steps. As a
result, the book will probably be available in enriched HTML before
it's on paper. (An Adobe product -- FrameMaker -- formed the backbone
of this process.)

 >  I can't unconditionally side with a) or with b), it depends on what I am
 > looking for in producing or in using the document.

So, you are saying that publishing formatting objects is the right
solution in some cases?

 >  2.) You can't determine the semantics from a DTD alone, you can only
 > derive the syntax and the allowed organization (of both elements (records,
 > fields, objects) and attributes (properties, qualifiers, modifiers,
 > constraints, values).

Correct. That's why my document says:

 "Publishing semantically rich XML should be encouraged when the
  semantics is globally known, e.g. MathML. Publishing arbitrary XML
  should be discouraged."

[1] http://www.operasoftware.com/people/howcome/1999/foch.html

 >  3.) A tagset (such as XSL's FOs) which is public, stable, and well
 > understood (with published semantics) is FAR better than a proprietary
 > encoding or a proprietary tagset (without published semantics).

Perhaps, but they're both bad when used on the Web. The right solution
is to publish documents in tagsets that are:

 - globally understood
 - semantic, rather than presentational

 >  4.) XML allows the definition of application specific tagsets. XSL's FO
 > tagset is designed solely for describing paginated and non-paginated
 > presentations, it is no more dangerous than any other tagset.

For reasons outlined in the paper, I believe XFO is much more
dangerous than other, more abstract tagsets developed within W3C.

I also think it's a significant departure from SGML's tradition of
capturing semantics, not presentation.

-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


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.