W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2002

RE: XSL-FO's

From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 00:53:38 +0200
Message-ID: <15735.57458.922151.588226@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
To: "Ian Tindale" <ian_tindale@yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>

Also sprach Ian Tindale:

 > > I'm a speech browser on the web. I've been sent an XSL-FO "document".
 > > How do I return to the source?

   [..]

 > I'd have thought it would be more logical to sort out what kind of
 > UA you are - HTML browser, XML 'browser', television, WAP device,
 > speaky thing, Braille terminal, synthesizer, teapot etc, and send
 > you precisely the kind of stuff you'll be happy with.

Yes, this is a better idea. What's the chance of the average webmaster
providing XSLT scripts for all the devices you list above given that
only 3.7% of W3C member organizations use valid HTML on their home
page [1]?

[1] http://www.markokarppinen.com/20020822.html

-h&kon
              Håkon Wium Lie                          cto °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome





 Aural properties to my mind belong in a stylesheet model of their own, rather than being tucked away in the corner of a visual spec, where they've more chance of being ignored than used. Thus, if you're a speech browser, you'll be sent a differently transformed set of objects, and hopefully a different 'style' sheet also. Neither of which would be applicable to a visual device, but that eventuality would never happen would it.
 > 
 > Rather than letting accessibility in a little bit, like giving a concession 'oh, here, have this dusty corner of the style sheet spec', why not have entire style sheet modes for different sensory environments, and deliver appropriately?
 > 
 > Ian Tindale
 > 
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2002 19:06:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:16 GMT