[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 12:11 PM 10/22/2004, DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO) wrote:
>Compare the following very similar question, and you'll see that you already
>know the answer: without something in the XML to indicate author preference
>for fonts, bolding, and page margins, how can they know what the result will
>be? How can they author the content?
I don't think the question is as similar as we'd like to believe,
if only for practical reasons.
It's one thing to say <strong> equals 12 point Verdana bold. The
styling is there, and promises to continue to be there.
What do we see in CSS and XSL-FO for links? I mean, c'mon. They've
had -years- to add it; they've been asked to add it; it isn't there.
>And if a common stylesheet adds linking behavior, they'll know what the end
>result will be as well.
I agree with this, in theory. I just don't see how it's practical.
I'll refer to my previous example, and expand upon it:
If I have a common set of well-known attributes that cause a
specific behavior, I'm freed from putting the need to codify that behavior
down to any one party. I don't have to wait for the CSS people to put it in
CSS12, or for the XSL-FO people to put it in XSL-FO v3. I can code it into
Javascript, or an applet. I can watch the Mozilla people bang it off in a
month.
And it's -simple-. It's a lot easier for people to remember a set
of standard attributes (within a namespace, of course) than it is for them
to remember that, today, <link> is a one-way hyperlink, while tomorrow,
<foo linkclass="historical"> means a generic element that's been turned
into a backwards-looking hyperlink.
The theory behind wholly-separated content and semantics is
wonderful. Does it work? Does it encourage mass adoption? Not without the
styling aspect already present, sadly.
I'd rather not see another specification take up years of peoples'
lives, only to get largely ignored.
--->Ben
|
