Paul Bennett wrote:
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 problem, though, would be that everybody will invent their own XML
based markup to suit their needs, which will make it impossible for
search engines to index properly (they wouldn't even know what is a
link, a heading, etc) and assistive technology such as screen readers
would not be able to provide any sophisticated methods of navigation.
Web developers will need to agree to a certain extent to a common
standard, otherwise we'll have a very fragmented set of "my very own
markup format" which would be indistinguishable from plain, unstructured
text to any programmatic tools (unless we have a method to unequivocally
specify the semantics of any of our own made up formats...something like
a DTD or Schema, but with added options to define what is a link,
heading, etc, and their relative importance and relationship with each
other).
Hmm...hope that made some kind of sense...it's too early in the morning
for this sort of heavy talk ;)
--
Patrick H. Lauke
__________________________________________________________
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
__________________________________________________________
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__________________________________________________________
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
