forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Turner <>
Subject Re: [RT] Getting rid of the table-based layout
Date Wed, 13 Nov 2002 13:33:23 GMT
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 10:38:56PM +1100, David Crossley wrote:
> Jeff Turner wrote:
> > Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> > ....
> > > We have a PDF-printable link on every page, IMHO it would be cool if we 
> > > had a "legacy" link that showed the site with the current table based 
> > > skin, so that older browsers have a nice viewing experience too...
> > 
> > ..and an "XML" link, so that newer browsers can download just the page
> > XML and apply the stylesheet themselves.
> Why do we want to encourage this?

If you "view source" on a CSS page like, you'll see
there are lots of <div> and <span> tags whose sole purpose is to specify a CSS
type.  If that's all they do, why not replace them with XML with an associated
stylesheet (CSS and/or XSLT) describing how to render the XML.  I'm pretty sure
that IE 6 and Mozilla could handle an XML version of iguanacharlie today.

Probably no-one cares if Forrest sends <faq> instead of <div id="faq"> when
they render the same, but it can't hurt to send semantically rich stuff to
users who want it.

> I see XML/XSL as a server-side thing only.

XSLT stylesheets, yes..
> When you say "apply the stylesheet", i wonder "how" and
> "to what".

<?xml-stylesheet href="site.css type="text/css"?>

To the output of site2xml.xsl, a theoretical equivalent of site2xhtml.xsl.

> To what does their browser apply the XSL? The xdocs/faq.xml
> for example, is raw content. As we know, it undergoes
> various server-side transformations before the browser sees
> the final product.

It would be an interesting experiment to see if client-side XSLT could be made
to aggregate header, menu, tabs and content XML files.  Perhaps lots of
document() functions.  If the browser caches files, then it could speed things
up a bit, because header, tabs and menu are the same for all pages in the same

> So why would we want to let a browser loose on raw XML?

Fun, conceptual neatness and lack of better things to do.


> --David

View raw message