forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicola...@apache.org>
Subject Re: table tag in document v11
Date Wed, 24 Jul 2002 06:38:43 GMT
Bert Van Kets wrote:
> At 20:42 23/07/2002 +0400, you wrote:
> 
>> > From: Ross Gardler [mailto:ross@wkwyw.net]
>> > Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Bert Van Kets wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >> Here's a snip of the table template in document2html.xsl
>> > >>   <xsl:template match="table">
>> > >>     <table class="table" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="1">
>> > >>       <xsl:apply-templates/>
>> > >>     </table>
>> > >> No background color, no cellpadding or cellspacing alternatives :(
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Which effectively don't belong there.
>> > > They are not part of the content.
>> >
>> > I agree. I think that what we are really missing is the class
>> > attribute:
>> >
>> >    <xsl:template match="table">
>> >      <table class="@class">
>> >        <xsl:apply-templates/>
>> >      </table>
>> >    </xsl:template>
>> >
>> > Then colour, padding etc goes in CSS where it belongs.
>>
>> +1. The 'class' attribute is needed on every [visual] element.
>> Another option to control the presentation of a specific element is to 
>> use
>> 'id' attribute and define a #myclass CSS style using the 'id' as the 
>> name.
>>
>> This again raises the question 'how a user can specify custom CSS file 
>> to be
>> used'.
> 
> 
> Moving the presentation details entirely to CSS will make it rather 
> difficult for larger projects to comply with every need. This is 
> specially true for tables as they are used a lot for layout purposes.  
> Of course they were not intended for that purpose when they where 
> implemented, but hey, what is the alternative apart from the complex CSS 
> positioning?
> Tables and TDs have a lot of attributes, which makes them ideal for 
> layout fine tuning.  Moving this fine tuning to CSS will make it 
> necessary to create a lot of classes. Beurk!  I'd rather have some 
> default attribute values which can be overridden.
> 
> Adding a class attribute to every tag is a great idea and will give the 
> users, who have some CSS knowledge, some control over the presentation 
> layer.  If they don't know anything about CSS, they will have to do with 
> what they got (same situation in every DTP prog).
> 
> I guess it boils down to one question : Does Forrest keep full control 
> over the layout or do we give partial control to the document editors?  

Zero control to document editors.
Document editors just say the *message* they need to convey, not *how*.

> I guess giving full control to the editors is already out of the question.

;-)

If document editors specify *what* they want to say, they have full 
control over *where* to do something, but zero in *how*.

> All the above is assuming Forrest is used as a CMS with a (very) fixed 
> layout.

Naa.
It's just that the semantics are in the document, while the rules are in 
the skin.

If you need simple tweaking, css is enough.
Else, you just use your new skin.

> I have been using Forrest to create a pure html site from xml and xslt.  
> SoC was enough reason to do this.  Apart from creating a new skin (not 
> worth sharing because too specialized) I had to scale down 
> document2html.xsl to make it possible to create the page specific layouts.

Could you please elaborate more on this?
My impression is that you broke SoC...

-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Mime
View raw message