Great topic! I had some experience using xml / xslt earlier this year. I was fiddling with w3schools xslt tutorial which uses client-side xslt transformation and I finally saw what all the xml fuss was about. The content could be marked up meaningfully (according to the actual data) then xslt could lay out the content and css could style it.
It was a real 'wow' moment as the xml penny finally dropped - a total separation of content and presentation, with no server-side shenanigans needed to convert the xml content. As soon as there is consistent browser support for client side xslt, we'll be able to deliver pure xml to the client and have it apply style and layout as the / browser chooses. True accessibility and universality. The web equivalent of 'Zen'.... ;) In my experience it's not the content that's the problem - it's the outlying structure (header, footer, nav, branding) that gets in the way of true 'semanticity' (look Ma - I done made me up a new word!). If we had a way (no, not frames) to semantically separate the nav / branding fluff from the actual core content we would be set. Thoughts welcome, Paul ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
