RE: storing info in XSL-FO: new issue? [was: Draft TAG Finding:.. .]

Ummm.... XHTML is an XML application, so that guideline 
doesn't make explicit sense.  There is nothing wrong 
with having an XML presentation language other than 
having a browser that can interpret and render it.  
Just genCoding.  SGML tried to kill that too.  The 
W3C brought it back as HTML.

Separation of content from presentation or rendering 
is not a very strong guideline either.   The problem 
is that you are singling out one semantic and holding 
it separate (essentially, the late bound one) while 
encouraging other semantics to be tightly bound without 
having a way to indicate the semantic itself without 
resorting to other means (documented namespace URIs, 
comments, the usual list).  I generally agree with 
the use of content-centric schemas given a community 
of understanding, but unless there is also something
at the end of the namespace URI, it isn't very easy 
to know when someone is on or off the bus.

There isn't a one sized fits all rule here.  There 
is just a practice that says name it for the maximum 
amount of unambiguous reuse (the greatest number of 
communities of understanding) and bind late whereever 
efficient to the local semantic of any given community.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Tantek Celik [mailto:tantek@cs.stanford.edu]


One conclusion that can be drawn from Guideline 3 is:

 "XML elements and attributes SHOULD NOT be used for presentation."

I believe this to be a sound architectural principle, and one that I
_thought_ W3C had adopted as a whole many many years ago when such elements
and attributes were deprecated from HTML4.

Received on Monday, 19 August 2002 14:46:54 UTC