Re: Headline: Styles pondering desertion to Content!

 From Wingy's thread... 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2004Feb/0001.html

>>Likely.  I call grading-dohickies "content" because they are "the data" 
>>of the grading process.  Teacher added data.  Its is not to "adorn" the 
>>original content.  Or is it?  :/  I'm not well versed with all the 
> 

David Woolley wrote:

> 
> You are making two mistakes:
> 
> 1) you are confusing imlementations with the underlying requirements.
>    Particular markup styles are implementations of underlying concepts and
>    a structural markup language should identify the underlying concept,
>    not the representation of it.
> 

Mistakes are likely, David.  But, I am having a hard time deciphering 
that.  Sorry, I probably shouldn't even post out here when I can't 
decipher the terminology, eh? :)  All I'm really asking here, is for a 
method to dynamically draw arrows, borders, and text THAT CAN 
Z-ROTATE... onto an xml document.  I want tools to "commentize" a 
previously marked-up document.  I want, at minimum, z-axis-aimable, 
styleable, dynamic arrows, and secondly, z-axis-aimable, styleable, text 
and borders.  The (possible future) dohickie formula library and 
browser-based rendering routine... is for use by everyone, not just 
teachers.  Its a way to make a simple markup language... into having 
some more power, yet not really affecting the markup language itself. 
In a way, I suppose, I am just asking W3c permission to use their OBJECT 
tag as an access point TO the dynamic dohickie rendering engine 
(DDRE?)... IF indeed I can talk any browser maker into installing one 
for us.  And that... I could use public help doing.  In other words, 
please don't box-out the allowed-syntax in a PARAM tag... to the point 
where I/WE can't use it for my/our future plans... IF I can convince 
anyone of the usefulness of such things.

Yes, I realize that I'm NOT just talking to the w3c here, I'm talking to 
browser companies and society too.  Maybe I'm talking in the wrong place 
and maybe I'm not.  YMMV!  Its just time that the story get told, and 
some hot brains get to work on solves.  I'm not here to pummel the 
making of the current system, I'm here to see if it can be grown-out to 
fruition.

> 2) you are assuming that [X]HTML is intended to be the ultimate document
>    markup language, when it is actually intended to be a simple one,
>    with languages like DocBook for more sophisticated use.
> 

That, is likely true.  I guess maybe I was HOPING that xHTML's 
extensibility would be able to do future needs.  Ok, so, I'm hearing... 
"Leave OBJECT tag alone.  Extend xhtml with a module to fit my needs, 
then go begging to browser and/or plugin makers to build a renderer for 
it."?

Is it likely that I can place a plugin's canvas gently into/onto an HTML 
canvas (embed)?  No.  Canvas-type mixing is hairy, last I heard. That 
might be why frames were invented, and why iframe still haunts us.  I 
dunno, gang.  Sorry that I'm a weak presenter, making mistakes in my 
thinking and speaking.  That's why I'm here, I guess.  To try to get 
educated enough so I can continue to search for the solve for this dilemma.

Thanks for the reply and corrections, DW!  Best Wishes!  Wingnut!

Received on Friday, 6 February 2004 10:14:11 UTC