- From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 07:14:22 +0100 (BST)
- To: www-style@w3.org
> The clue for me is whenever it's necessary to change the underlying > XML/XHTML/HTML to yield the required rendering, and that change cannot be Which is the domain of XSL. CSS is intended to be a relatively simple styling language, and easy to learn, although is now suffering the bloat that is the fate of all computer standards (which start focussed then try to do everything). The fact that XSL is not widely implemented indicates that browser marketing people don't consider there to be a real demand, although, to some extent, that is the result of an unsophisticated market that is failing to understand that different tools are appropriate for different jobs (e.g. I think that tagged PDF is the best compromise for pixel perfection with accessibility, but most authors try and achieve pixel perfection with HTML/CSS, forgetting the accessibility). To take a point from another article, if you want a feature in CSS3 that is only going to be widely deployed in 5 to 10 years, an inability to support XSL in HTML should not be an issue, especially as XHTML 1.0 provides a mechanism for writing, de facto, backward compatible XML. > justified by the content alone. This is just as bad a conceptual breakdown > as using tables for layout instead of tabular data, but is more difficult to > recognize. And, so it's easy to overlook.
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2005 06:50:09 UTC