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: Including legacy html
Date Tue, 17 Dec 2002 14:26:27 GMT


Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> "Andrew C. Oliver" wrote:
> 
>>But then you're asking XML to take non-well formed stuff and put
>>it in, make the document non-compliant ill-formed HALF XML/HTML
>>(which will confuse the crap out of some browsers).
> 
> you're definitely missing the point, andy.  who said the output
> had to be html, or xml, or was to be read by a browser?  it's none
> of the transformation engine's fscking business what the output
> format looks like; it's sole job is to take valid input and *create*
> the output according to its instructions -- however poorly-designed
> they may be.  tools that try to be smarter than a competent user
> get up my nose, quite.

Almost right, but not quite. At Cocoon, and seemingly here at Forrest, 
we bring forward the fact that content and presentation must be 
separated, and that the engine should be able to adapt to *any* output 
format it may want to.

So the tool *should* take valid input however poorly-designed they may 
be. But we will define what valid input is, and do it thinking of this 
separation.

So the question is wether this change would break this or not. Including 
resulting content will possibly make presentation be used by content 
authors (thing which broke and rammed semantical html in the first 
place), and would make it impossible for the engine to cater for any 
future format, because some content is available only in a defined format.

You ask to be able to make stuff pass through. Instead, we should say: 
what does that tag contain? What is the meaning it has?

If something must be done to it or not is not the content editor to 
decide, but the styleshees, that can bypass or not.

I know that it's difficult to accept, because content writers want to 
always tweak the style, but this is Evil (TM), and the reason why I 
disabled HTML mail in all my organization (they hate my even more 
because of it :-> ).

>>Really Ken, in another year or two all that poor-formed HTML
>>(because well formed is XHTML which is XML) will make this
>>discussion the equivlent of discussing how to make sites render
>>nicely on 2400 bps modems.
> 
> ha ha ha ha!  (/me wipes eyes)

No need to laugh, if it all goes as it seems, we will have a Flash-only 
web ;->

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


Mime
View raw message