W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2002

Re: CSS in XML format ?

From: Robin Berjon <robin@knowscape.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 05:14:57 +0200
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <02071105145723.15602@morgaine>

On Thursday 11 July 2002 02:17, Patrick Andries wrote:
> De: "Jan Roland Eriksson" <jrexon@newsguy.com>
>
> > CSS is a "non procedural, descriptive only" language, it shall stay that
> > way of course (advocating this to the current CSS WG, if it helps).
>
> I do not understand how this contradicts its syntax being XML. Could you
> explain ?

It doesn't contradict it directly, but it does express the idea that CSS-X as 
the main syntax for CSS is impractical for a number of things. The nice and 
compact syntax works well for humans and computers alike. With the XML syntax 
the only thing that is made clear is the parse tree. And that's useful to 
computers alone. Look at RelaxNG for instance, the XML representation is 
already very useable but still a more compact language was devised to make it 
easier on humans. The computers don't care, that syntax can still be 
converted to XML. Why don't you just do the same with CSS and show the world 
your results if they're good? The tools are there, and all this time spent 
arguing could have been spent implementing.

> > It's about understanding to use the right tool for the job at hand, the
> > "bandwagon" fools a lot of people to think in opposite ways.
>
> Yes, yes. I'm sure those "fooled by the bandwagon" appreciate.
>
> Let's stick to explaining why XML is incompatible with the  non
> procedural, descriptive only  nature of CSS.

Now, instead of sliding into an endless thread that will achieve nothing 
because 1) the people that aren't interested in CSS-X won't become interested 
and 2) the people that are won't cease to be, can't we just leave it at 
rather simple terms?

If you're interested in CSS-X, then please prove to the world (or at least to 
yourselves) that it's useful by implementing it. It's not hard. What's the 
point in trying to convince people that have no use for it anyway?

-- 
Robin Berjon <robin@knowscape.com> -- for hire: http://robin.berjon.com/
  The only sensible way to estimate the stability of a Windows server
  is to power it down and try it out as a step ladder.
  -- Robert Crawford, in the Monastery
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2002 23:15:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:15 GMT