- From: Manos Batsis <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 11:09:07 +0300
- To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Hickson [mailto:ian@hixie.ch] > > > > In HTML, the agent knows what goes where (since it's a presentation > > centric language) Most of it's functionality was evolved from the visual rendering point of view. <b>, <table> etc hold presentation meaning more than data semantics. > (Strict) HTML is not a presentation-centric language. Yes you can say that for XHTML Strict. > > while the structure of an XML document doesn't help a browser in > > deciding the presentation structure that will make sense to a user. > > XML is a meta-language, it itself has no structure. XHTML is XML, for > instance. So your argument makes no sense. You are telling me that everything in an XML document is in a bag? By structure, I mean hierarchies. Themata (as Schemata :-) is divided into areas of the document without that order being the right one to display. Am I making sense now? > > So, either the XML document should have a structure and 'data order' > > close to the desired XSL output, or an XSL is mandatory while CSS on > > it's own is useless. > > IMHO that argument makes no sense. It's a pity you are saying that. I'll try again. Imagine a magazine as an XML document. The user cannot handle XSL but the XSL is there to do the following: 1)Sort <article> elements into specific categories 2)Make a TOC Now, if you display that document with css only, you will get a series of articles with no categorisation. Now you try and find the comics page in that. > > So, an agent should know what is what IMHO. > > And that is what HTTP Content Negotiation is for. If you could describe the above using HTTP Content Negotiation then you wouldn't need XML to make a Solaris machine talk to a wintel one. Manos
Received on Monday, 2 July 2001 04:10:24 UTC