[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
Re: HTML is a formatting/UI language was: RE: Formatting Obj
Subject: Re: HTML is a formatting/UI language was: RE: Formatting Obj From: Paul Prescod <paul@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 22:59:19 -0500 |
Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > We've had HTML for how many years now? And we have also had text to speak > for a good number of years also. Anybody seen during this time a rush by > the Web community to support aural presentation of Web pages? As far as I know, aural presentation of Web pages works *today*. > At a simple level, HTML is so loose, unclear and unspecific (I was tempted > to simply say crap) that there are 100000000 and 1 mish-mashed pages > pulling all sorts of dirty tricks to render they're page. Think that H2 > tags should be delivered in a certian way? It would require the dangerous > assumption that authors use H2 tags correctly. HTML *allows* you to do things properly and also makes that relatively easy to do. For instance MSWord 2000 outputs H1s, H2s, etc. for headings. So does DreamWeaver. I don't know a lot about other tools. Formatting objects *have no concept* of an H1 and an H2 so they don't even give users the option of doing things in an accessible manner -- unless they make a whole 'nother aural stylesheet (which we know they are not likely to do). > Hakon then talks about being able to carry over data semantics into > presentation using DIV classes.... just HOW are you going to interpret that > auraly. You don't. But then no major tools I know of generate just SPANs and DIVs. You could point to a tool that did and say: "that tool is broken." But a tool that used the same FO tag for paragraphs and headings would be *doing the right thing*. That's a problem. > The best way to specify aural presentation is.... ummm to specify it *not* > infer it. In a world of unlimited resources, maybe. In this world, not a chance. How much do you know about the proper aural specification for sight impaired people? How much research have you done? I know what I know: "use good, semantic HTML and let the software handle it." That's pretty much the jist of what the experts say also: http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/ Of their 14 guidelines not a single one says: "Go out of your way to use special technologies designed for impaired viewers." Most of them say, rather: "use the technologies that you would ordinarily use, but use them carefully and properly." "alt" text is the only counterexample and we know how wildly popular THAT has been. > [I truly find it hard to credit that we're going over HTML again at this > stage of the game] We don't need to go back to HTML if the formatting objects are made accessible. -- Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco "The Excursion [Sport Utility Vehicle] is so large that it will come equipped with adjustable pedals to fit smaller drivers and sensor devices that warn the driver when he or she is about to back into a Toyota or some other object." -- Dallas Morning News XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: HTML is a formatting/UI languag, Guy_Murphy | Thread | Re: HTML is a formatting/UI languag, Guy_Murphy |
Re: Formatting Objects considered h, Paul Prescod | Date | Re: Clarification Regarding XSLT Tu, James Tauber |
Month |