W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2000

Re: Default XSL stylesheet for XHTML documents

From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 13:16:53 -0700
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Ian Hickson <ianh@netscape.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-id: <0G1R00HDJPKFQJ@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net>
From: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>

> * "Ian Hickson" <ianh@netscape.com> wrote:
> | > Conversion to PDF for printing and document exchange when XHTML+CSS
> | > isn't appropriate.
> |
> | XHTML+XSLT+XSL:FO can do no more than XHTML+XSLT+CSS.
>
> So development of XSL is waste of time? XML documents can be transformed to
> XHTML documents and styled with CSS equally so noone needs XSL? Why didn't
> anyone notice that and stopped XSL development?

Nature tends to be redundant.

> | What's more, XSL has not even reached version 1.0 yet. CSS is currently in
> | the development of it's third revision.
>
> You do not want to tell me, the higher the version number is, the better the
> technologie.

No, what Ian is trying to say (which I fully agree with) is that something
which is _shipping_ [CSS 1.0 (spec & two full implementations), CSS 2.0
(spec & >90% implementations)] _is_ better than something which is not.

And of course I'm sure Ian is not implying anything about superiority via
higher version number.

Tantek

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why "version 5.0" shouldn't be skipped.     http://www.microsoft.com/mac/ie/
Received on Sunday, 1 October 2000 16:15:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:06 GMT