Subject: RE: CSS and XSL From: "Jelks Cabaniss" <jelks@xxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 17:43:37 -0500 |
> If, however, some things are XML and some are CSS and some are in other > formats, this approach fails, since you can't apply an XML pretty printer, > XML validator, XML namespace handler, XSL XML-to-XML converter, XML-to-DB > and back converter, XML stream processor, etc. etc. to a CSS document. That > is, you can, but the CSS would be treated like a black box - just moved > around without any processing. You'd have to make a special case for it. > > I feel that the above is a convincing reason to _allow_ an alternative XML > syntax for CSS (while fully preserving its current semantics!). You don't. Actually, that's not the case: I am all for allowing any alternative whatevers the world can come up with -- alternatives are what makes evolution possible. I was merely expressing my personal dislike for the verbosity of what I have so far seen in *MLized CSS, and I remain skeptical of supposed technical benefits of going that route. Furthermore, CSS expressed as CSS will be the primary means of *styling* XML documents in web browsers for at least the next few years, not XSL. A few indications (in no particular order): 1) DOM: DOM Level 2 incorporates the CSS style model. (Perhaps a couple of folks on the MS and Netscape DOM implementation teams are hollering "Man, we just can't do this unless CSS has pointy brackets", but I imagine their managers are looking hard for alternate projects for them... :) 2) Average users: CSS syntax is just SO MUCH more simple than XSL for styling! Show average web page authors CSS and XSL and (unless of course documents need reordering) which one do you think will be implemented? 3) Mozilla: The once Not-Invented-Here attitude at Netscape toward CSS (not to mention lousy implementation) has given way to the busy throngs working on Mozilla, which has already passed IE5b2's CSS compliance in code that is still *pre-alpha*!!! (And the last I heard was that Mozilla.org has no plans for implementing client-side XSL until the spec settles down -- if then). XSL (or XFL) isn't going to displace CSS in web browsers any time soon. For the near term, I see scattered XSL server-side transformations (one of *many* viable approaches), and a few IE intranets. For the longer term, we'll have to wait and see: a stable XSL Recommendation is still a long ways off. I still have some hope for it (otherwise, why complain?), but unless it loses its current complexity, I firmly believe that it's doomed to niche areas. /Jelks XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
glyph-id, Elliotte Rusty Harol | Thread | RE: CSS and XSL, Jonathan Borden |
Re: Complex XSL Application (I thin, Wendy Cameron | Date | Re: Complex XSL Application (I thin, Wendy Cameron |
Month |