CSS and XSL

["Oren Ben-Kiki" <oren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jelks Cabaniss <jelks@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>You're saying that if style isn't expressed in XML, we won't be able to
>manipulate it? Take a look at DOM Level 2, at IE4, at DSSSL.

No, of course not. Just that XML tools (editors, validators, pretty
printers, from-and-to-database adapters, XSL based conversions, etc.) won't
be able to handle it. Functionality would have to be reapeated, and would
have to handle the interaction between the two worlds. Take validation for
example. If CSS isn't XML, you'd need a new way of specifying constraints
for the CSS part, to tie these constraints to the XML document structure.
Would you agree that this is undesirable?

>In fact, wouldn't
>the "whole-world-is-XML" approach be more favored by monolithic program
>aficionados (you only have to use *one* parser for *everything*) than the
Unix
>"separate pieces" approach.


Using one _syntax_ does not mean using one specific parser - and definitely
doesn't mean using one monolithic program. Quite the opposite.

>And though I'm not necessarily opposed-on-all-counts to expressing style in
XML,
>I really haven't yet seen an XML approach that doesn't butcher the beauty
and
>simplistic elegance of CSS.


Mine included, I suppose. Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

>> I tossed this
>> idea here as a "heretical view" of how XSL could/should be defined,
instead
>> of the current FO approach.
>
>No problem with your heresies, but I haven't yet seen a good reason for
>recasting CSS as XML, any more than I have seen good reasons for recasting
>bitmapped graphic formats or IP packets as XML.

I agree that XML is the wrong format for anything which must be highly
compressed - image formats and network packets included. As for good reasons
for recasting CSS to XML, I think I've given some.

Share & Enjoy,

    Oren Ben-Kiki


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list