Subject: Re: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists as tables) From: "James Tauber" <jtauber@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 12:20:12 -0400 |
> All I get is the public messages - in public, I'd have to say the ratio of > XSL dissing CSS to CSS dissing XSL, especially in the early days, is about > 10:1. (I just walked through the public archives to confirm that. Your > mileage may vary.) I was thinking of the fact that at least two articles have been published dissing XSL in favour of CSS. I know of no similar articles doing it the other way around. Furthermore, I wonder how many "XSL dissing CSS" messages are really just "CSS doesn't do foo. XSL does do foo. I need foo. Therefore XSL is better for me". > I do find it funny, and somewhat sad, that the two communities stay in > their own little worlds - XSL on xsl-list, and CSS on www-style. The > cross-fertilization might well have been interesting. I agree. > >I am not aware of any implementers who wanted to implement XSL FOs more > >because of reconciliation with CSS! > > Heck, I offered to work on a CSS->XSL FO converter for FOP, though I can't > say I've found time for it. I'd like to see it happen. Back when FOP was written in Python, Lars Marius Garshol and I were talking about a CSS version. Interestingly, adding CSS support to FOP means treating CSS as defining formatting objects, which it does in many respects, although Hakon Lie might not see it that way :-) > I have, however, heard of several other cases > where people are pondering using CSS and XSL on a more 'interchangeable' > basis now that the two vocabularies are compatible. I've also heard from > several Web developers who were excited to hear that their existing CSS > knowledge would be of use in XSL, which significantly expands the community > of potential early adopters. But I still stand by my comment that I am not aware of any implementors who were motivated by CSS compatibility. > >In my experience, many of the people who find XSL FOs compelling are > >typesetting specialists. Those typesetting specialists who have doubts about > >XSL FOs seem to have even greater doubts about CSS. > > If they really want to do it 'right', without 'political' interference from > the W3C's existing body of standards, I'd politely suggest that they find a > body more tuned to the needs of typesetters. I think the XSL WG *is* tuned to the needs of typesetters. > Or work with DSSSL, which > seems _very much_ alive, despite several reports of its demise. So you recommend DSSSL, but at the same time criticise XSL. Now I'm really confused! :-) XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists , Simon St.Laurent | Thread | Re: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists , Simon St.Laurent |
Re: FO. lists as tables. Re: Q: XML, David Carlisle | Date | Re: Variables within templates, David Carlisle |
Month |