- From: Tony Graham <tgraham@mentea.net>
- Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 22:41:31 -0000 (GMT)
- To: public-ppl@w3.org
On Sun, January 5, 2014 12:20 am, Liam R E Quin wrote: > On Sat, 2014-01-04 at 14:23 +0000, Dave Pawson wrote: >> I'm not proposing solutions, just options. In this case >> some form of simpler syntax / terminology. I hope you'll agree >> that CSS syntax (if not semantics) is easier than FO? > > In some ways CSS is simpler and some ways not. ... > There might also be a lot of mileage in translations (whether in XSLT or > otherhow) from CSS into FO, so that e.g. people could use xmlroff or fop > with a CSS syntax. Some constructs might be tricky to translate - e.g. > static content on page masters is very different, and can be dynamic in > HTML+CSS (but is not so easy to position where you want it). If XSL-FO supported an uber-shorthand 'style' property or even supported a 'class' property and allowed CSS stylesheets in fo:declarations [2] then we might have had more crossover, but that would have been unthinkable until some time after XSL 1.1, and then we didn't think about it after then either. Regards, Tony. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl11/#fo_declarations
Received on Sunday, 5 January 2014 22:41:53 UTC