W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > November 1996

Re: CSS vs. DSSSL-O

From: Bill Smith <bill.smith@Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 15:51:36 -0800 (PST)
To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <libSDtMail.9611261551.12684.bsmith@providence>
Terry Allen wrote:

> Is it an implication of the <li> above, and the sentiment
> expressed in this thread that dsssl-o is XML's style sheet
> language (and not CSS) that an applet that handles the putative
> airline schedule exports either a dsssl-o style sheet or a FOT
> to the rendering application?  (Just asking.)

Based on the WG's charter, dsssl-o is XML's style sheet language. I for one 
wouldn't mind discussing the possibility of one or more alternatives - like CSS. 
However, any discussion on style sheets should occur after we handle link syntax 
and semantics.

HTML already has style sheets, broken though they may be. If we waste time 
arguing about CSS and dsssl now, we won't make progress on linking and that is 
an area where HTML is clearly lacking. Beyond allowing extensible structure and 
markup, XML can differentiate itself from HTML by providing richer link 
semantics. We can do this in time for WWW6 as long as we remain focussed.

I'd like to see us move into the "link phase" of our discussions. We have the 
right people assembled to rationally discuss this issue. We have demonstrated 
that we can have meaningful discussions, argue points strongly, (reasonably) 
reach consensus, remain (relatively) focussed, and perhaps most important, 
effectively communicate our decisions outside this WG.

Let's keep up the good work by remaining focussed on the next task - link syntax 
and semantics. We have an opportunity to make a significant contribution to the 
Web community at large by establishing some simple, well-defined constructs for 
hypertext links in XML. Style sheets come later.
Received on Tuesday, 26 November 1996 18:51:52 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 10:03:44 EDT