Re: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists as tables)

[David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx>]

Simon wrote:

  The typesetters are ticked that XSL won't be their dream machine, while the
  Web developers are ticked that XSL only came around to support the existing
  and Web-focused formatting model provided by CSS after extended dallying
  with the typesetters.


I certainly hope that isn't the outcome of the drive to conform with
CSS. I thought (from glancing over some of the papers on css3) that the
outcome was more the other way that CSS would eventually extend its
formatting model to be more like that of XSL, with properties suitable
for printing pages on paper as well as the more traditional CSS domain
of screen rendering. I don't really see any reason why XSL formatting
objects can't cover both web and paper publishing, and that CSS can't
be essentially just a different selection mechanism and syntax over the
same basic formatting model.

David


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list