- From: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
- Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 20:36:37 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
- CC: dssslist@mulberry.com
> (define (expt b n) > (if (= n 0) > 1 > (* b (expt b (- n 1))))) But when's the last time you wrote a function for exponentiation in a stylesheet? I agree with you that DSSSL has hard parts. But since nobody has to learn it all (except James Clark) it isn't really fair to say that it is difficult without saying what level of problem you are discussing. > | I have not yet seen anything that is easy to do in CSS that is hard to > | do in DSSSL except things that depend on the implied "built-in" HTML > | stylesheet. > > Well, that's a lot of things. Have you seen the code that Anders > Berglund wrote to handle CALS tables in the DocBook DSSSL stylesheet? But if you use the fact that CALS tables were difficult as proof that DSSSL is difficult then you have also proved that TCL is difficult because doing CALS tables in TCL would be a pain too! I don't see what's so hard about DSSSL tables: (element table (make table)) (element tr (make table-row)) (element td (make table-cell)) That table code works -- I just wrote it for this email and tested it. Sure, I could add little things like a caption (one line of code) borders (one line) etc. etc. And once I had added 100 little options to make it the most beautiful table in the world, it might look a little bit imposing -- but still not difficult. On the other hand, if I tried to make it the most *flexible* table code in the world, taking tables with 100 different attributes and cells and guessing what to do with them, *that's* when the code would get hairy. But that's still not DSSSL's difficulty, that's the difficulty of the problem. Just figuring out what the browsers do with tables could take you a full day, much less coding something like it. > What > I'm saying is that as things stand right now, in the absence of DSSSL > stylesheet editors, DSSSL is a language primarily aimed at experts who > need to solve hard problems. I don't see why it should be. If a typical user can create a perfectly good table with the code above, why should we exclude anyone who is at least smart enough to learn CSS? I think it would be a big mistake to relegate DSSSL to the realm of hairy tools because it can be used to do hairy things. It is a rare product that scales beautifully and we should be celebrating this characterstic of DSSSL rather than down-playing it. Paul Prescod
Received on Thursday, 17 April 1997 22:25:52 UTC