W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2003

RE: CSS 4?

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:44:46 +0000 (UTC)
To: Robert Koberg <rob@koberg.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0310232140300.10860@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Robert Koberg wrote:
>
> [...]

Glad we agree! :-)


> I keep hoping that contentEditable will get added to the (X)HTML spec(s).

It's not a simple problem. It applies to more than just HTML; some might
say it should be in CSS but others disagree that it is presentational and
insist it is semantic; it is useless on its own, needing a set of editing
interfaces to make it useful; etc.

I have yet to see a decent proposal that would take all that into account
(and I say that as the editor of one of the proposals).


>> The current CSS-to-PDF systems are very advanced, easily as advanced as
>> the XSL:FO-to-PDF systems in my limited experience.
>
> Apache FOP is pretty limited, but there are some other ones (renderX) out
> there that can do quite a bit more.

You may be interested in yeslogic's Prince:

   http://yeslogic.com/prince/


>> Of course, why you would want to take perfectly accessible XHTML+CSS
>> and turn it into device-dependent, non-user-configurable PDF is beyond
>> me.
>
> :) me too. We have an ASP based CMS and I totally refuse to use
> (generate) it mainly because of the processing power required. For our
> print friendly pages we just present a stripped down HTML version of a
> page/folder/site. BTW, (if we are in control) we only output valid HTML,
> CSS and are 508 compliant :)

Cool!

-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
U+1047E                                         /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 23 October 2003 17:44:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:24 GMT