Re: AW: AW: intermediate representation

From: Emmanuel Pietriga <>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 10:32:51 +0200

Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:

> My concerns on the table are rather explicit:

> 2) if a tree representation of the selection is made explicit, you
> don't need the fresnel style part to achieve device independence of view
> rendering. (so, not only you reuse code between fresnel implementations,
> but you reuse code from *everybody* else!)

I don't really understand what you mean here.

> 3) if you want to do an RDF-based styling language, go ahead, but this
> is another concern and a problem that I don't have, nor care to spend
> time on.

I thought we agreed to put aside the presentational part of the styling
vocab for now, and concentrate on selection + non-presentational styling
with hooks/classes. People interested in modeling more presentation
knowledge can then build on this core (later, when we're done with this
part). Otherwise we'll keep arguing and in the end we'll get nothing.

So, getting back to this workflow, we should have:

1) get a model
2) apply fresnel selection and get a submodel
3) apply fresnel graph->tree operations (stuff like contentBefore,
etc.., the 'non-presentational' part of our current styles)
4) obtain the tree

2) is done by applying lenses to the source model. 3) is done by
applying non-pres styles (PropertyTransform stuff) to the result of the
selection process by lenses.

I'm not sure how lens and non-presentational styles are related at the
declarative level, though... Anybody having a clear view?

Emmanuel Pietriga
INRIA Futurs - Projet In Situ    tel : +33 1 69 15 34 66
Bat 490, Université Paris-Sud    fax : +33 1 69 15 65 86
91405 ORSAY Cedex  
Received on Wed May 11 2005 - 08:33:33 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Aug 09 2012 - 16:40:51 EDT