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

Re: CSS vs. DSSSL-O

From: Len Bullard <cbullard@HiWAAY.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 08:08:27 -0600
Message-ID: <329C4B5B.799F@HiWAAY.net>
To: Jon Bosak <bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM>
CC: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Jon Bosak wrote:

> Of course it's not technically incorrect.  One of the reasons for
> using XML is to enable every imaginable variety of output treatments.
> You are perfectly free to use whatever output process specification
> you want. 

Ok.  But if I have to write a FOSI for XML, I'm going to take up 
knitting screen displays instead.
 
> I really don't see how it's possible to be much clearer about what we
> are supposed to be doing here than I was in that letter.

The intent is clear.  The reason is not.  Again, I support DSSSL.
I think it good to discover and elaborate as the work item proceeds
why other approaches may not or are not as effective as the one 
being worked.
 
> It *is* a
> purpose of this activity to foster the use of DSSSL.

Ok.  The sidebar discussions of CSS will be inevitable, but 
no recommendations have to be issued for it.  David Durand 
mentions in his post that it may be early to choose a stylesheet 
language, and the considerable work going into it by W3C members 
just as the IETF is working on URI/URN/URC pieces.  So, where 
we don't consider parallel work, we have to be clear as to why 
one is and another is not worked.  I certainly accept and welcome the 
DSSSL work item.  My personal opinion is pretty much the same 
as David's on the issues here.

> In the meantime, it's clear
> that we should avoid becoming sidetracked by the discussion of
> particular stylesheet methodologies until we have linking completely
> specified, just as we were careful to avoid the discussion of linking
> until we had the basic markup syntax specified.

I agree.  Because I wasn't involved in the discussion of the 
decision to stick to the schedule and not do these in parallel, 
please provide the rationale for that and the means by which 
hyperlinking is separated from the stylesheet discussion since 
there are concepts in which the two overlap.  How is that separation 
maintained?  That helps us understand what hyperlinking concepts are 
being worked.  In other words, a reply to a question on a design 
vote by the ERB of "oh don't worry, the stylesheet will handle 
that" will be unacceptable rationale.

len bullard
lockheed martin
Received on Wednesday, 27 November 1996 09:08:05 EST

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