Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: W3C-transformation language petition From: Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 11:00:38 +0000 |
Hi Oren. A counter example? Hmmm, I hate being asked to back up my spurious opinions. I far prefer to shoot my mouth off and run, but now you've called me on it.... OK, say we want to address the issue of not just Web pages and printed documents etc., but realise that Web applications are on the increase, in particular on the intranet. So, maybe on the basis of that we decide it would be nice to have... <fo:window> ...content... </fo:window> That can be defined to open either a window internal to the user agent making MDIs easy, or external to the user agent in a manner similar to that we currently have. Follwoing the path of FOs we are able to *easily* convey such intent to both the user agent and other developers. As I've suggested before, and I realise I'm in the minority, IMO CSS can only be seen as formating parameters and doesn't even constitute a full formatting spec.. So, straight back at ya Oren. How might the above be expressed as cleanly "the CSS way"? And given that a way can be found (display: window; maybe, although the CSS paradigm starts to get strained), shall we inflict such stretches of the CSS fabric every time we want to extend XSL? As far as I can see the FOs currently given really are only the starting point, and over time they would extend. With CSS we are left with problems expressing anything that isn't just a block or and inline element. Another thing that I see watching both Mozilla and the growing array of "skinable" applications. Now something like FOs might be perfect for interface defination, although it would almost definately be best for such implimentations to sit in their own namespace I think the whole thing would be far more intuitive if FOs are the basis from which formatting start. If we are left with CSS as our basis then I don't see it as feasible to attain any degree of unity of approach the the ever broadening formatting concerns. Styling of XML is going to be a *very* broad concern ::shrug:: I just don't believe that CSS is up to the job, but I appreciate that many do. As for the large body of your post that suggests broadly that the worth of FOs will be resolved by the market place... hmmm... I've one thing to say to you Oren..... *Windows* :P Cheers Guy. xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 03/03/99 08:48:30 PM To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cc: (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID) Subject: Fw: Fw: W3C-transformation language petition Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: [SNIP] Again, anything that can be done the FO way can be done the CSS way. _Anything_ (counter example, please?). I'm not certain this particular issue should be handled at the FO/CSS level, though. [SNIP] XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Fw: W3C-transformation language pet, Oren Ben-Kiki | Thread | RE: Fw: Fw: W3C-transformation lang, Didier PH Martin |
XTL, XSL, ....., Bovone Stefano | Date | Re: Fw: W3C-transformation language, Guy_Murphy |
Month |