Re: About the style processing instruction

Subject: Re: About the style processing instruction
From: Chris Maden <crism@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:11:59 -0500 (EST)
[Didier PH Martin]
> Yes right, the CSS2 specs include a provision name @media which is a
> good idea but not applicable to XML nor SGML

Why not?  I use CSS with XML, and the media rule makes perfect sense:

* { width: 33em }
@media print {
  * { font: 10pt/12pt Garamond }
@media screen {
  * { font: 12pt/14pt Helvetica, Arial }

Most other properties are going to be independent of the actual font
selected and relative to the size, so I don't need two separate

> However a similar provision should be part of either DSSSL or XSL.

DSSSL didn't really consider media dependency.  XSL has how to handle
this as an open issue (noted in the published drafts).

> Are you suggesting here that only W3 can specify things and us let
> only with implementation? Is it a one way dialogue (if I can call
> that dialogue) with institutions like we got 1000 years ago (or not
> so long ago)? I hope not.

Absolutely.  Feudalism now!  Tim Berners-Lee for Pope!  All Citizens
are instructed to report for processing immediately.  The White Zone
is for loading and unloading only.  No free thought here, nosiree bob.

I was suggesting that we not re-invent the wheel.  I don't care
whether the Pope or a serf invented it first, but it's been done, so
why re-do it?  If it had been done square, then it's not really done,
but it wasn't, so it is, so let's not.

<!ENTITY crism PUBLIC "-//O'Reilly//NONSGML Christopher R. Maden//EN"
"<URL> <TEL>+1.617.499.7487
<USMAIL>90 Sherman Street, Cambridge, MA 02140 USA" NDATA SGML.Geek>

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread