Hello, Anne. Everyone who's replied to me on this forum have been patient, whether to answer a question or simply to provide information. That's what I meant. You wrote: > > I don't think CSS as currently designed, implemented > and used fits really well in some tree-based > language. > OK, but I'm flexible. > > Also, the examples you gave still show the need for > some kind of CSS parser, > The CSS working group decides whether user agents will parse CSS. You could redesign CSS to look like FO, but without page-masters and flow elements, if that's what you want. If you can combine att:val pairs into a single style element, then you can style arbitrary mark-up the same way you style HTML right now. You can keep CSS rules with their current syntax inside a <css:style> tag. Just the ability to easily style custom XML is great! > the order of elements is significant The order of styled elements in the XML document, or the order of styling rules in the <css:style> tag, or what? > and the syntax (with namespaces and all) is horrible. > Well, OK. -Noah __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.comReceived on Saturday, 4 February 2006 23:29:03 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:43 GMT