Subject: RE: The XSL-List Digest V2 #85 From: "Jelks Cabaniss" <jelks@xxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 00:23:07 -0400 |
John E. Simpson wrote: > As for those who've never used either PDF or FOs, I still don't quite > understand why they'd *want* to use FOs alone. To grok XSL FOs, they've got > to grok XML itself. By the time they get that far, if they remain > determined to create FO castles in the air, as it were, neither we here nor > the W3C will be able to stop them. I don't want to expend any energy to > stop them. There won't be enough of them to worry about. The current state of the web seems to dispute that. Witness "Presentational HTML" and "DIV-SPAN HTML" -- both "FOs" (of sorts). That these "documents" aren't reusable or accessible hasn't stopped over 90% of "web designers" from authoring them. Over 90% is enough of them to worry about. > neither we here nor the W3C will be able to stop them. True. Nor could anyone "stop them" once Marc A. decided <FONT> was cool. Hakon's article is asking us to just re-think "<FONT> is cool" before we turn down that dead end one more time. > So I guess my main question is still, WHY would someone want to build > documents in an FO-only way? Because we still think the web is print. /Jelks XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Isn't it possible to use XSL to pre, motoki | Thread | Re: The XSL-List Digest V2 #84, Olivier Brand |
Re: Fw: Grand Unification Theory, Duane Nickull | Date | Re: The XSL-List Digest V2 #84, Olivier Brand |
Month |