Re: Transformation + FOs makes abuse easy

Chuck White wrote:

 > 1) How are XML semantics lost if the original XML source document is
 > ultimately delivered?

If the original XML source is available, no semantics is lost. The
fear is that the XML source document will be withheld by the server
(for economic or other reasons) and XFO will be sent out instead.

 > 2) How are the current FO's structured differently than the CSS objects
 > described in Håkon's W3 note (http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-XSL-and-CSS)? To a
 > non-programmer like me, the following (from Håkon's note) looks similar to
 > the FOs that he and Simon oppose:
 > 
 > <template match="/">
 >   <css:page size="landscape"
 >             margin="1.5in 1in"
 >             marks="crop"/>
 >   <css:page name="left"
 >             .../>
 >   <css:page name="rotated"
 >             .../>
 > </template>

The note you refer to was an excercise in creating a syntax for CSS
formatting objects. You are right in comparing the two approaches, and
a full-scale deployment of the above formatting objects is just as bad
as full-scale deployment of XFO. There are some crucial differeces,
though:

 - the NOTE is not on it's way to W3C Recommendation status
 - the authors didn't encourage anyone to implement the note
 - no commercial company has offerend a bounty of $90.000 to implement
   the note

-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