Chris Bizer wrote:
>>What do other people think about this? Are we all ready to go the intermediate tree way?
>
> No.
>
> Using a intermediate tree is a valuable Fresnel implementation strategy but
> shouldn't be the default way to write down display knowledge.
I don't think you write it down. It gets generated for you from the
application of Fresnel lenses. You never actually get to write it
yourself. Then, if all you are interested in is this tree, you get it.
If not, you can just use it for further processing as we would have in
the previous approach without seeing it (we might for instance choose to
have a declarative RDF-aware styling part that would exploit information
found in this intermediate tree but that would not require Fresnel
stylesheet designers to actually refer to it if they don't want to).
This solution looks open enough to me that we can consider many ways of
doing styling from the intermediate tree. Essentially, it is just a way
to explicitly split the pure styling part of Fresnel from the previous
steps. At least that's what I understand of Stefano's idea.
After a quick discussion with Chris, we think that we should probably
end this high-level discussion and work on an intermediate tree format
proposal, so that we have more concrete elements. From there, it should
become clearer whether this fits our various requirements and
expectations about what Fresnel should be.
Chris mentioned a proposal he made last month. I'll try to retrieve it
and in addition to Stefano's sketches I'll try to come up with an
intermediate format proposal. I won't be able to do that before next
week though, so if somebody wants to submit another proposal or at least
give requirements/make suggestions about what information it should
contain, feel free to do so.
--
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 http://www.lri.fr/~pietriga
Received on Tue Apr 26 2005 - 12:50:25 EDT