Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Joshua Allen wrote: >>as fairly straightforward XML document markup it >>seems perfectly reasonable. Even with XML+XSLT+CSS we're dependent on >> >> If I may finish the sentence ;-) Even with XML+XSLT+CSS we're dependent on the rendering engine that gets the transformed/styled end result, still really in the same boat as with HTML alone. > >Now this I disagree with. HTML is a mess. Some tags are semantic, some >tags are presentation-only. It is all jumbled together. It's a very >poor vocabulary, and should be hidden from all but web page designers. >The actual data files should be written using a specific vocabulary with >well-defined vocabularies. > > But the point I was trying to make here is that once you have XML+XSLT+CSS you still have to give the browser something to work with - you can apply CSS directly to arbitrary XML, sure, but where did all the link anchors go? Ok, let's have the data in a specific, vocabulary with well-defined semantics. You're going to transform with XSLT to *what* exactly? Dare also misses this point later in the thread - it's ok arbitrarily calling XSLT on XHTML screenscraping and talking of the application of XSLT+XSLT+CSS to RSS as if it were some kind of noble data interpretation, but where there's data intended for human consumption at the end of the pipeline there's going to a renderer. Usually a HTML renderer. Cheers, Danny. -- Raw http://dannyayers.com
|
