RE: [DFXP LC Comment] Some questions (was: Re: [tt] Some question s)

Anne,

I am a proponent of the elimination of inline style, and very much favour
the use of style sheets and applicative or associative style. There are few
cases where style is truly information - but I can think of some.

For example, the Coca Cola logo is white text on a red background - not
because red or white have any semantic association, but because that is the
trademark style for that logo.

So there is a place for purely presentational style.
In my area of interest (TV subtitling) however, style is NOT a presentation
issue, but a means to convey extra information along with the text (such as
speaker identity, shouting etc).

As Glenn states, the TTAF WG have met the requirement to represent style as
XML. 
I guess you would agree with me however, that the limitations of the DFXP
style mechanism make that representation less useful than it could be.

regards John Birch.


-----Original Message-----
From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:fora@annevankesteren.nl]
Sent: 22 March 2005 13:41
To: Glenn A. Adams
Cc: public-tt@w3.org
Subject: Re: [DFXP LC Comment] Some questions (was: Re: [tt] Some
questions)



Glenn A. Adams wrote:
> [GA] Sorry. Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I was inviting you to make a
> persuasive argument for use of xml:id that I could take back to the WG.
> I am not prepared to make such an argument, particularly since I am one
> who would need to be convinced of using xml:id.

It would remove the need for a validating parser to recognize the 'id' 
attribute is of type ID.


> A requirement of TT AF was that all information be represented as XML.
> We believe we have satisfied that requirement.

Styling isn't really information. You could have distinquished it as 
such, but that might be a wrong observation. Moving styling inside the 
document takes away the advantages of user specific style sheet or style 
sheet switching where the author could provide multiple styles for the 
same page and leave the choice to the user.

Embedding everything in the document takes away all those advantages and 
clutters the semantics, just like <font> did.


-- 
  Anne van Kesteren
  <http://annevankesteren.nl/>