Re: Transformation + FOs makes abuse easy

"John E. Simpson" wrote:
> 
> Since the flurry of responses to the original "FOs considered harmful"
> post, I've pretty much shut up -- trying to see how people of such sound
> mind on both sides of the argument could have such different
> interpretations of "what is." I think Simon's initial posting under this
> new thread goes a long way to making clear (or -- at least to me --
> clearer) the point of the criticism of the XSL FOs.

Let me point out that Simon's argument is quite far from mine. I think
businesses have a right to pump out whatever crap they want. My argument
is that most of us do not have the resources to set up a completely
separate stream of development for aural interfaces. Instead, XFOs should
be designed to degrade gracefully for non visual interfaces (as HTML is).

XSL should make accessible design easier than it is today, not harder.

-- 
 Paul Prescod  - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself
 http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco

"Microsoft spokesman Ian Hatton admits that the Linux system would have
performed better had it been tuned."
"Future press releases on the issue will clearly state that the research
was sponsored by Microsoft."
  http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/enterprise/1999/9904221410.asp


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