RE: Style sheets and a pro-active approach to Formats and Protoco ls

From: Dave Pawson. RNIB(UK)

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Jason White [SMTP:jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU]
> Sent:	Monday, November 17, 1997 23:33
> To:	WAI HC Working Group
> Subject:	Style sheets and a pro-active approach to Formats and
> Protocols
	Jason: What is the status of XSL development within the W3C. On
the Consortium's
> web site, I have found a draft note which sets out a proposal for XSL,
> but
> it is stated to be a submission, implying no endorsement by the W3C,
> and
> it does not constitute a working draft. 
	DP: XSL is available in print. A team in Scotland (part funded
by Microsoft) 
	have implemented a rather roundabout route to an implemenation
	takes in XML and outputs RTF, using a modified Jade from James
Clark to
	first convert the XSL into DSSSL. It is real, it is a subset of
DSSSL with
	all its power. 

	Jason: <snip>it might
> be preferable to concentrate the WAI effort on the development of XSL,
> which would better accommodate the complex features required to
> generate
> fully satisfactory braille and audio formatting. 
	DP: Any others like to comment on this approach, it sounds
promising to

	Jason: If XSL is compatible with
> CSS, then some of the less sophisticated braille and audio features,
> if
> proposed and accepted as part of the development of XSL, could then
> find
> their way into future versions of CSS. 
	DP: Don't know about that. CSS is definately the little brother
here IMHO.

	Jason: So far, the involvement of the WAI in the development of
W3C standards
> has, of necessity, been reactive rather than pro-active. 
> An equally important function, however, now that the WAI
> and its International Programme Office have been fully established, is
> to
> influence W3C standard development at an earlier stage of the process.
	DP: My experience is that the earlier you can influence a design
the less costly
	the changes. Surely this applies here too. Last weeks experience
seems to
	have bumped up against the 'too late to change' response which
	backs up Jasons position.

	I like the idea of building into a requirements specification
for future standards,
	surely the best time to get in?


Received on Tuesday, 18 November 1997 03:11:25 UTC