W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2002

Re: storing info in XSL-FO: new issue? [was: Draft TAG Finding:...]

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 07:58:31 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <873ctf9frs.fsf@nwalsh.com>

/ Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com> was heard to say:
| The recent TAG finding which suggests that XSL FOs is just another XML
| vocabulary which can/should be stored/transferred on the web 

I don't believe that the finding suggests that FOs "should be" stored
or transferred. I don't think it talks about storage or transferral at
all, in fact. And it certainly makes no assertion that FOs should ever
be used to the exclusion of more accessible formats.

That they are just another XML vocabulary that can be
stored/transferred on the web is indisputable and largely irrelevant.
Any bag of bits can be stored/transferred over the web.

| I have long argued [5][6] against representing FOs in a syntax since it
| opens up for W3C-blessed semantic firewalls and all sorts of
| accessibility problems.

That one might want to mix FOs, SVG, and MathML, and that one might
expect the semantics of formatting properties and their values to be
consistent across those vocabularies does not, in any way, suggest
that FOs are being used to "open up W3C-blessed semantic firewalls"
(whatever that means) or that they create, in practice, "all sorts of
accessibility problems".

Do you know of a single site that's serving XSL FOs up over the web to
the exclusion of more accessible formats?

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM    | During the first period of a man's life the
XML Standards Architect | greatest danger is: <em>not to take the
Sun Microsystems, Inc.  | risk</em>.--Kierkegaard
Received on Friday, 16 August 2002 07:59:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:33 UTC