- From: Kurt Cagle <cagle@olywa.net>
- Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:37:56 -0800
- To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <www-talk@w3.org>
> > > How do you transform HTML into WML 1.0/1.1? You can't because they are > so > > > different, HTML is so much more complex than WML. > > > > Speaking as the author of a piece of software that converts HTML to plain > > ASCII, I'm pretty sure HTML can be transformed into nearly anything. ;-) > > Speaking as someone who has tried a million times to make a useful XHTML to > WML conversion tool, I can tell you that you lose an awful lot of the data, > becuase images, scripts, forms and so on, cant be readily converted. Not > saying it's impossible, just very very hard. Actually, the biggest problem with conversion of WML to XHTML is that they exist at different process levels. An XHTML document exists as a single process (assuming no complex scripting or other work to make client "wizards" possible). WML, on the other hand, is a set of discrete processes - a card in a deck is a single process. The two are fairly radically different design constraints, and get back to a fairly deep semantic problem that the comparative simplicity of the two languages tend to hide. One solution that I've found is to recognize that it is far easier to design XSLT transformations that combine multiple processes (call them document chunks) into a more complex page than it is to take a web page and break it into distinct WML processes. There's actually a lesson here, I think. Analysis of documents is a largely human activity, and requires extremely sophisticated programming tools to duplicate in an autonomous environment. On the other hand, the synthesis of doclets into cohesive superstructures can be easily automated, can be easily monitored, and provides far greater flexibility to target multiple output forms. The disadvantage here is that most of the tools we have for content generation are macular -- they confuse flexibility of content generation with flexibility of content display. Moreover, the server architectures that we have also tend to reinforce that macular concept -- a web page is easy to write but a sequence of web forms (which is in essence what WML is) require more sophisticated processing. Thus I don't see a clean HTML to WML map any time soon, while a WML to HTML map is almost trivial to write. I don't think this is an insignificant aspect of building a semantic web. -- Kurt
Received on Thursday, 9 November 2000 14:38:08 UTC