Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2016 Archives by date, by thread · List index


Hi Olivier,

Olivier Hallot píše v So 17. 12. 2016 v 14:54 -0200:

One thing I'd like to add for evaluation of using XML for the help
contents in browsers is that,  in my experience:

*  XSLT (XML style sheets), XPath and XQuery  are another technologies
to master.

* An error in a XSLT statement and one get  a blank page or a message
with very little indications (Firefox)

* XSLT seems to be an aging technology. Is the industry betting in this
technology for the future?

* Rendering XML+XSLT is browser-dependent and is not publicly/widely
tested by W3C. We may be forced to test the results into a wide set of
browsers.

Nothing stops us from rewriting the XLST transformation to plain
JavaScript, and handle the XHP files directly via JS if XSLT is blocking
us.  [And this is a reasonably self-contained, and easily testable task:
The XHP -> HTML conversion has to give the same results before and after
the rewrite for all the files.  We've got rid of XSLT in writerfilter
the same way few years ago.]

And maybe we'll eventually end up with using the plain HTML5 directly -
I definitely don't want to block evolution (even though at the moment I
see more drawbacks than gains).

But that's my main point - I want an evolution, not a revolution.  Every
time I hear about "helpcontent*3*" or "let's move to html5", I get
extremely scared, because such claims seem to suggest that we have to
throw away what we have & rewrite everything first, and miss what we
want to achieve in the first place; which from what I know is:

1) add multimedia content

2) make the editing easier

But neither 1) nor 2) have html5 (or a complete rewrite) as a
pre-requisite, for both these goals there is an incremental upgrade path
possible: Improving XHP step by step.

All the best,
Kendy


Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.