Re: CSS and XSL?

Subject: Re: CSS and XSL?
From: "Chuck White" <chuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:51:03 -0700

Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: CSS and XSL?
>Date: Thu, Jun 10, 1999, 10:12 AM

>At 09:31 AM 6/10/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>>It seems like the W3C could have avoided this split and the crazy debates
>>>that have followed it by making XSL and CSS work together, not separately.
>>The debate would have just been the other way around. People who wanted
>>transformations would have just been the ones crying foul. 

>The point here isn't that transformations shouldn't have happened - it's
>that you could at least use the same formatting vocabulary for CSS and for
>XSL FO's.  

>XSL-T raises its own issues, but making it coexist with CSS isn't very
>difficult.  I don't think there would have been a debate at all, actually,
>or at least much less of a debate.

My point was that if the current working draft had taken a different form,
there would have still most likely been debate, although I have no more
empirical evidence that it would have been so than you do that it wouldn't
have. So perhaps I should have said people who wanted FOs would have been
the ones crying foul. Since FOs is the formatting model that has been
included in the working draft thus far, it's pretty clear *somebody* is for
them, and presumably they would be yelling if the XSL-CSS note had gained
favor instead of the current draft.

Consider the delays that will occur if we change direction now. Whether or
not there *would* have been debate about a different way to manage XML style
sheet capabilities, I hope you can understand that a change in the direction
at this point would result in a debate at least as lengthy and spirited as
the current one. Not to mention the time it would take to develop a model
that works as well as the one currently in the draft.

Chuck White
Creative Director
Advance Recruitment Advertising, Inc.

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread