Re: Client-side XSLT. Re: Bad News on IE6 XML Support

[Paul Tchistopolskii <pault12@pacbell.net>]

> > So you call HTML a 'low level junk' 
> 
> If the semantic content of the message is within the scope of HTML 
> then HTML is fine.

The semantic content? I don't undertstand this. Really.
So you want to display something on some client (browser)?
What the heck is 'semantic content' ? Or maybe I don't 
understand what are you talking about?

> But for mathematics I want to use MathML. I can in simple (and even not
> so simple) then I can make something that _looks_ more or less like
> Mathematics by using css javascript and random font changes, but the
> MathML file is far more useful.

So you want to render some mathematics stuff, sending
something  like XSL FO ( just for Mathemathics ) ? Let's 
call the thing MathFO.

Now either the browser understands MathFO ( has a plugin 
of whatever ) or it *does*not*.

What is the critical role of client-side XSLT processing here?
Really? I (still) don't get it. I understand 'semantic content' 
sounds better than 'low-level junk', but I don't understand 
what particular problem you're trying to solve... What is the task?
To render MathFO in the browser that does not understand 
MathFO ??? How can client-side XSLT help you???
 
> > I think HTML was *very*good* idea.
> So do I. It was, and it still is.
> But many people saw the need for something else, in addition to HTML:
> A cut down "SGML for the Web"

I don't understand how is this relevant.
Many other people just want beer and have 
no clue about HTML or XML. 

> The initial promise as XML as a language for the web is not met if the
> XML is just a private internal format and the only thing thatgoes on teh
> web is a presentation oriented downtranslation of that information to
> HTML.

I think you're playing with words here. I still don't 
understand your idea about client-side XSLT and 
what particular problem you want to solve. 

All the arguments for "client-side XSLT" ( in the 
absence of scalable client-side FO ) are *very much*
questionable.

Rgds.Paul.