Checkpoint 6.6 Re: Re Checkpoint 6.3

I don't understand. Do you mean we should say something like 

6.3 Allow the author to transform HTML p elements into list elements, and
smil switch elements into excl elements

or that we should give examples like that?

There are a number of examples that would be useful (this is only a P3), such
as the ability to turn: 
+ HTML table-based layout into CSS
+ HTML paragraphs to lists and back
+ HTML br to p
+ SMIL switch to excl
+ SMIL switch to par
+ HTML (deprecated) FONT into heuristically determined structure
+ Word processor styles to web styles
+ lists of lists to tables and back
+ removing a container element from a collection of elements
+ adding a container element to a collection of elements
+ SVG g elements to symbol (with the associated requirement for defs and use
elements)
+ MathML presentational markup to semantic markup (or vice versa)
+ HTML deprecated presentational markup into CSS
+ invalid markup to valid markup (subject to user override as per 6.4
+ SPAN into RUBY

I would suggest that most of these should be incorporated into the
techniques, although a couple of simple concrete examples might be useful in
the checkpoint text.

To a certain extent this is a specialisation of 1.6 Allow the author to edit
the structure. However I think this is offering a functionality beyond the
requirement, and at a lower priority it is giving useful guidance as to what
would improve the function of the tool. In fact this is provided to some
extent in tools already - Word Processors, Netscape Composer, Amaya, are all
tools I have used in this way, and I would be surprised if they are the only
ones.

Charles McCN

On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Ian Jacobs wrote:

  Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
  > 
  >   Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
  > [snip]
  > CMN Had written:
  >   >    6.6 Allow the author to perform element transformations. [Priority 3]
  >   >           For example, to transform visually formatted elements to
  >   >           structure elements, or tables to lists.
  > IJ:
  >   This checkpoint seems to vague to me. I think there needs
  >   to be more information about the purpose of the transformations.
  >   The techniques emphasize transformation of style elements to structural
  >   elements. I realize one may not want to overconstraing the types
  >   of transformations, but that would be more useful to start with.
  >   The transformation of structure to style (e.g., don't use BLOCKQUOTE)
  >   is also helpful.
  > CMN:
  > I'm not exactly clear what you are suggesting. 
IJ  
  Pick a concrete type (or two) of transformation and reduce the
  scope of the checkpoint to that.
CMN  
  > The checkpoint technique
  > itself gives two examples based on structural transformations.
IJ  
  Then reduce the scope of the checkpoint to those. And add other
  checkpoints for other types. But "transformations" alone doesn't tell
  me what I should do.

Received on Monday, 30 August 1999 22:29:55 UTC