[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 12:30 10/07/2003 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>My point here is that arguing for complete author
>control will push one away from XML anyway. User
>control pushes toward it. If I am sending XML
>to an XSLT-enabled receiver, my control is pretty
>much zero, so trust. If I send CSS inlined, I have
>more control but not perfect because it is not
>hard to edit a file or even XSLT it. If I send it with
>a reference to CSS, I am back to the same problem
>as with XSLT: trust. I can't be sure what is in
>the CSS with that name at the receiver. The only way
>I can send it without having to trust the receiver is to use a
>FFF (final fixed format).
\one of the reasons behind css was to allow the CASCADE.
WAI says the user disposes, the author proposes.
e.g. Len wants it 4pt, pale blue.
I can't read it, so my cascad overrides Lens and I
get 16point black. That's accessibility?
Bottom line is, I guess. The need to get content transitted
is even more important than the authors desire for it to be 'just so'?
If I can't read it, I can't say wow, look what a good job Lens made
of this content. I just dump it if I can't read it.
How many web sites have you come across where the authors
are just *so* desperate to cram as much in as possible that little
is legible? This on the assumption that it just *must* be on the front page?
Jacobson was pretty smart IMHO.
Yes/No?
regards DaveP
|
