[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Joshua Allen wrote:
>>as fairly straightforward XML document markup it
>>seems perfectly reasonable. Even with XML+XSLT+CSS we're dependent on
>>
>>
If I may finish the sentence ;-)
Even with XML+XSLT+CSS we're dependent on the rendering engine that gets
the transformed/styled end result, still really in the same boat as with
HTML alone.
>
>Now this I disagree with. HTML is a mess. Some tags are semantic, some
>tags are presentation-only. It is all jumbled together. It's a very
>poor vocabulary, and should be hidden from all but web page designers.
>The actual data files should be written using a specific vocabulary with
>well-defined vocabularies.
>
>
But the point I was trying to make here is that once you have
XML+XSLT+CSS you still have to give the browser something to work with -
you can apply CSS directly to arbitrary XML, sure, but where did all the
link anchors go? Ok, let's have the data in a specific, vocabulary with
well-defined semantics. You're going to transform with XSLT to *what*
exactly?
Dare also misses this point later in the thread - it's ok arbitrarily
calling XSLT on XHTML screenscraping and talking of the application of
XSLT+XSLT+CSS to RSS as if it were some kind of noble data
interpretation, but where there's data intended for human consumption at
the end of the pipeline there's going to a renderer. Usually a HTML
renderer.
Cheers,
Danny.
--
Raw
http://dannyayers.com
|
