Subject: Re: CSS shorthands (was something else) From: Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 12:24:26 +0100 (BST) |
> Note I'm not arguing for a change in CSS, that is already out in the > field and changing the syntax now probably is not worth it, but I do > not really see that for an XMl based system `compatibility with CSS' > has to mean reproduction of the exact syntax of these composite values. hear hear! Compatibility with CSS concepts and names --- great. Slavish compatibility with CSS shortcuts --- misguided interpretation of the mandate. XSL FOs are so verbose already that expansion of a few attribute values probably does not buy very much. Sebastian XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
CSS shorthands (was something else), David Carlisle | Thread | starts-with any number, Garriss Jr.,James P. |
CSS shorthands (was something else), David Carlisle | Date | starts-with any number, Garriss Jr.,James P. |
Month |