W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2010

Re: XSLT and CSS as competing technologies

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:42:10 -0500
Message-ID: <4B743362.1050703@intertwingly.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: Krzysztof MaczyƄski <1981km@gmail.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> ...
>> More relevant to a W3C context, if such a policy were followed, there 
>> would not need to be both an XSLT and CSS.
>> ...
> 
> I don't think that's a good example, as XSLT does lots of things CSS 
> can't do.

[co-chair hat off]

We are getting off on a tangent (my bad), but RDFa does a lot of things 
Microdata can't do.  And despite XSLT being "superior", and being a fan 
of XSLT myself, I tend to interact with CSS much more often than I do 
with XSLT.  Some people may end up feeling the same way about microdata 
vs RDFa.  (I can't say: at the moment, I use neither)

The overlap between RDFa and Microdata doesn't concern me.  They both 
are the types of standards that the W3C should get involved in.

Hypothetical discussions about another working group might or might not 
do a better job don't keep me up at night either.  These types of issues 
have been discussed (and "resolved" numerous times) both above my pay 
grade and well before any of the current three co-chairs were named as 
co-chairs.

If somebody wants to do the work of drafting a new charter and building 
consensus around it, then I say: go for it!  Otherwise, from what I can 
see the W3C Staff, the Interaction Domain Leader, and the Director all 
seem comfortable with the current charter.

> A better comparison might be XSL-FO vs CSS, in which case I'd argue 
> extending CSS to do what XSL-FO can do, and potentially adding an 
> XML-based notation, would indeed have been the better approach.

DOA.  But that's just my opinion.

>  > ...
> 
> BR, Julian

- Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 11 February 2010 16:42:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:28 GMT