RE: [docbook-apps] Re: XSL stylesheets HTML output issues (bugs?)

[Cavicchio_Rob@emc.com]

Dave Pawson [mailto:davep@dpawson.co.uk] wrote:

> Richard wrote:
...
> "a) Limited accessibility with rendered HTML elements.
> Which HTML elements get output, for the same 'effect', seems to vary
> depending on which tag(s) were used in the XML source, and where they
> were used.
> Sometimes the <b> element is used for bolded text, though this is
> deprecated
> and works poorly with assistive technologies like screenreaders.
> In other cases the <strong> tag is output."
> 
> 
> That's simply an aspect of going from a richer vocabulary to a lesser 
> one. HTML has far less elements than docbook.

and...

> Yet the class information is passed through for CSS use. What are you
> looking for here?
> 
> The semantic markup is in the XML, not the HTML.


I think Richard's point, which I agree with, is that the HTML should be
as semantically valid as it can be--which is to say, no hardcoded
formatting tags when a class name will do nicely. I haven't used <b> or
<i> within raw HTML in years, because (a) there's no need anymore, and
(b) it doesn't tell you anything about what you're marking up.

Certainly something like this:

<span class="argLink"><a href="#sysban_list">(1)</a>&nbsp;args</span>

makes more semantic sense than this:

<i><a href="#sysban_list">(1)</a>&nbsp;args</i>


We've modified the XSL to do this for quite a few inline elements, which
in our case has also allowed us to divide up authoring tasks more
easily. You can customize the formatting of the output with a CSS file,
without having to know the more complex XSLT.


Rob Cavicchio 
Senior Technical Writer
EMC Captiva
EMC Corporation
10145 Pacific Heights Boulevard, 6th Floor
San Diego, CA 92121-4234

P: (858) 320-1208
F: (858) 320-1010
E: Cavicchio_Rob@emc.com

The opinions expressed in this message are my own and should in no way
be interpreted to reflect the opinions of EMC.