Print

Print


> On 29 Oct 2014, at 14:25, O'Donnell, Dan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Perhaps a dumb question. But in that case why not deemphasise the html? I.e. serve out the xml and either style as is or do client side transformations? 

because I want to deliver ebooks, where client side transform isn’t really an option. and even then, it doesn’t
seem safe to dynamically create HTML which messes up its fundamental concepts about flow and inline

> 
> It seems to me that the problem you are setting yourself is rapidly becoming how can I preserve the semantic granularity of the original TEI in an HTML text that is used for interchange without negotiation, and I'd guess the answer is going to be 'you should design something like the TEI to do it.’

yes and no. but I am not talking about _complete_ semantic interchange, but lossy downgrading to the universal interchange format
while trying to keep the limited semantics which HTML _does_ offer. Which is why, for example, I am inclined to see if I can follow Ron’s
idea, but implement it using <aside>.

I don’t think I can go as far purely presentation HTML using only div/span _passim_.


Sebastian