On 8/16/05, Patrick H. Lauke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
We currently use server-side transformation of xml to xhtml using
xslt, with the ability to provide different output by simply parsing
the xml through a different xslt.
The beauty of this is that you can include xslt libraries to pretty
much rewrite the most horrid html to clean standards based xhtml.
The additional bonus of this is that you can rearrange the semantic
layout of the html at will using nothing more than xslt.
I am also not convinced that rendering xml on the client side will be
an option for a while yet (not for general content anyway) as Patrick
noted. Since xhtml *IS* xml anyway, and the fact that it's trivial to
serve up an RSS/Atom feed, clients already have a lot of options for
rendering content (ie newsreaders, switching css, disabling css etc.).
As mentioned previously, DocBook seemed overkill for the content we
deal with, so like everyone else, we have pretty much rolled our own
xml abstraction layer.
I would be very interested in any info on standardised xml 'templates'
for content, as it would then allow development of an xml to standards
output which would be consistant between vendors.
-
Adrian Lynch
http://adrian.haymarket.com.au/
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
