[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
Re: Formatting Objects considered harmful
Subject: Re: Formatting Objects considered harmful From: Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 18:24:55 +0100 |
Hi Paul. My apologise. Maybe I need to go back over the archive and make sure Ive got things straight in my own head. I *thought* it was being suggested that XHTML+CSS was a better deliverable than XFOs as XFOs where open to possible abuse, and that XHTML+CSS supported aural presentation in a convenient fashion and maintained semantic value. Cheers Guy. xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 04/28/99 06:54:53 PM To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cc: (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID) Subject: Re: Formatting Objects considered harmful Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > The problem with your solution is what needs to be "told" to the site > impared is often not the same as what is presented on screen. Therefore > unless you split visual presentation from aural presentation you cannot > actualy *cater* for the visualy impared, you can only give them the > unstrctured, often gibberish that is the aural interpretation of the Web > site.... ie. a second best often useless fallback.... anybody want to argue > that this is what the visualy impared deserve, or that infering aural > presentation from the bulk of Web sites meets their needs? You are attacking a straw man. I don't think that anybody is claiming that there should be no aural presentation objects. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: Formatting Objects considered h, Jonathan Borden | Thread | Re: Formatting Objects considered h, Jonathan Borden |
Re: XSL and Web Native distributed , Guy_Murphy | Date | XSL-to-DSSSL, Paul_Tihansky |
Month |