Dnia środa, 27 lipca 2011 o 18:44:37 davep napisał(a): > It will be a fine line between markup for styling and styling itself. > Until this is explored, I'm not really sure where those lines might > be drawn?
Markup for styling: This text represents object Foo of type Bar. Styling itself: Let this text be hairy and upside-down. What is unobvious about that? I have seen declarations like ‘This text is of type green’, and the style applied was green text. While this may seem clumsy, it is still markup for styling. The taxonomy of objects and types used by the author is really up to the author; it is intractable to prefer some taxonomies over other ones. A better taxonomy would be more consistent, modular or easier to maintain; but that depends on the intended application. Now, semanticists frown upon such a declaration because they want to use the data to extract and manipulate information from the source text and therefore they need and advertise universal taxonomies. But not every text is amenable to semantic processing; in particular, works of art are for human consumption only. If we could use Docbook to produce a work of art, I am all for it. Producing a work of art requires the styling to be somewhat random, or at least unpredictable. This effect can be achieved by attaching an identifier to each element and applying style to that identifier (unless the style engine itself is the artist, which is also possible but rather futuristic). In this sense, a WYSIWYG editor (which is normally appropriate for creating a work of art) would be fully capable to separate markup and style. IMHO, Chris --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-apps-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-apps-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
