- From: Tony Graham <tgraham@mentea.net>
- Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 12:07:41 +0100 (IST)
- To: public-ppl@w3.org
On Wed, April 25, 2012 1:10 pm, Dave Pawson wrote:
> On 25 April 2012 12:50, Tony Graham <tgraham@mentea.net> wrote:
...
>> ... how would you see XSL-FO handling requests such as this where:
>>
>> a) CSS has a property definition
>>
>> b) Some or all of the CSS definition may be "at risk", e.g. 'The
>> <string>
>> value, and the 2-value syntax "{1,2}" and functionality are all at
>> risk.'
>>
>> c) There exists at least one XSL-FO implementation [1] with similar but
>> different syntax/semantics
...
> Review and judge ea on its own merit?
> I don't think it reasonable to choose either option as a basis for
> decisions?
But that could lead to a hodgepodge of things that are just like CSS and
things that are either subtly different or completely different from CSS,
which would make it harder to migrate between the two.
If FOs and properties are the API of XSL-FO and the first characteristic
of a good API is that it's easy to learn [1], then if 'everyone' knows
CSS, being the same (syntax aside) would make FO easier to learn. You
might describe that as the motivation for the shotgun wedding in the XSL
1.0 timeframe, even if doing it now would look more like unrequited
affection.
Regards,
Tony.
[1] http://lcsd05.cs.tamu.edu/slides/keynote.pdf, slide 4
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2012 11:08:15 UTC