Anonymous user
Talk:Text to HTML: Difference between revisions
→potential rulesets
Line 108:
:: for that purpose only,sure. but then that wouldn't be much of a task. therefore i want to explore what else can be done to improve the presentation.--[[User:EMBee|eMBee]] 03:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
::: In my opinion, there are two kinds of transforms to consider: "changes that lose information" and "changes that do not lose information". A "non-lossy" transformation is one that can be reversed. One ideal would be a non-lossy mechanical transformation which minimizes information losses at rendering time for typical browsers -- here, the goal is to get out of the way and not be an obstacle for the provider of the text.
::: Much of the discussion on this page seems to be about "lossy transformations". For a lossy transformation to be implemented properly, I think that we would need a clear understanding of the purpose of the transformation.--[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 15:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
:::: the purpose of the transformation is stated above. which aspects would you like me to clarify? i don't know if the transformation can be done non-lossy. certainly sounds like it would be nice to get that. but it's not a deciding factor. ''"get out of the way and not be an obstacle for the provider of the text"'', however is cetainly a quality i'd like to achive. it is one reason why i do not want to consider markup.--[[User:EMBee|eMBee]] 17:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
::: Also, is there a reason why we are discussing a new transform here, and not an existing transform? --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 15:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
:::: i am not aware of any existing transforms that do not depend on explicit markup. if you can point to any, please share. i'd be happy if this task can be solved with existing tools or based on existing rules.--[[User:EMBee|eMBee]] 17:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
| |||