Subject: Re: XML + (XSL | CSS) ? From: "Jelks Cabaniss" <jelks@xxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 15:56:07 -0400 |
Daniel Glazman wrote: > > XSL is, even if I am enthusiastic about embedding styles > > into a XML formalism, a complex specification and I doubt > > that all the audience who hardly understands some difficult > > concepts in CSS will be able to produce XSL quickly. Lisa Pease wrote: > Using XSL, I can put the text directly into the style > sheet once, and have it repeat 1000 times for each > book listing. In addition, I can select out only > those portions which I am using for that list. All very true, but look at the stars too much and you can tumble into a hole. Sure, XSL is way cool, no question about it. But XML 1.0 and CSS 2.0 are Full Recommendations TODAY; how far off is XSL? Judging from the Working Draft of XSL Requirements, a good while. So do we experiment with half-baked solutions like IE3 did with CSS version 0.5, or do we implement using beautiful, solid blueprints -- while *planning* for the future? Is there any reason we can't have BOTH options, like CSS for simple stuff, XSL for for more complex or dynamic stuff? We want XML + CSS, and we want it NOW! (apologies to Jim Morrison ...) Who's going to do it? /Jelks ====================== Jelks Cabaniss jelks@xxxxxxxx http://www.jelks.nu/ ====================== XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: XML + (XSL | CSS) ?, Lisa Pease | Thread | Re: XML + (XSL | CSS) ?, Lisa Pease |
Re: XML + (XSL | CSS) ?, Alain DESEINE | Date | Re: XML + (XSL | CSS) ?, Lisa Pease |
Month |