Re: [docstandards-interop-discuss] Clarifications / Scope of the intended work?

["Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

On 10/04/07, marbux <marbux@gmail.com> wrote:

> For example, the Apache Cocoon development team has already developed
> a XML-based scripting language ("sitemap" in Cocoon parlance")



> I haven't checked in to see what happened with it, but there was also
> an OASIS proposal roughly a year ago to develop a similar language for
> scripting  transformations



For what purpose?

> I like the idea of raising the abstraction level of transformation,
> aggregation, etc.  methods to a meta-level hub language, particularly
> if it can be implemented in a user-friendly way.

Is this an 'Esperanto'  based solution? From format A into Esperanto,
then Esperanto out to format B?






> On the pageless/paper document distinction, there should be provision,
> I think, for preserving paper document metadata from the source data,


I disagree, but would like to hear the rationale, including examples
where the sender and recipients 'pages' are totally different, and how
mapping might address this.



>
> Granted, I have about 10 minutes of total time spent studying the
> tutorial, but this one near the top caught my eye. I think it
> essential that the proposal recognize that we live in a relevant time
> of transition.

My view is that this is not in scope for this TC.


>
> I also think it absolutely essential that accessibility validation be
> part of the foundation being constructed for this proposal.

Accessibility of what please? The source format, the 'Esperanto' solution
(as an intermediary language) or the target format?


But
> extraction and aggregation of data from a variety of formats presents
> some obvious problems for producing accessible documents as output
> from such a hub. So I'd say call in the accessibility experts very
> early on.

No expert, but I've been working with WAI for 10 years.

regards


-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk