Re: Default XSL stylesheet for XHTML documents

On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

>>> Conversion to PDF for printing and document exchange when XHTML+CSS
>>> isn't appropriate.
>> XHTML+XSLT+XSL:FO can do no more than XHTML+XSLT+CSS.
> So development of XSL is waste of time?

XSL covers two completely different technologies, XSLT and XSL:FO. 

IMHO, the development of XSL:FO is a waste of time, yes.

> XML documents can be transformed to XHTML documents and styled with
> CSS equally so noone needs XSL[FO]? Why didn't anyone notice that and
> stopped XSL[FO] development?

That's what several people have been asking for a while now. I have seen
no answer.

>> What's more, XSL has not even reached version 1.0 yet. CSS is currently
>> in the development of it's third revision.
> You do not want to tell me, the higher the version number is, the
> better the technologie.

Not as a general rule, no. The point I was trying to make is that CSS is
already much more mature. Consider how long it has taken for CSS to be
fully implemented in browsers -- more than 4 years (we are not there yet).
XSL:FO is *as complicated* as CSS (since it uses similar basic
principles). Thus it will probably take as long to reach maturity.

The argument about CSS being a better technology is very well covered by
Haakon's article, which you mentioned previously.

Ian Hickson                                     )\     _. - ._.)       fL
Netscape, Standards Compliance QA              /. `- '  (  `--'
+1 650 937 6593                                `- , ) -  > ) \ _________________________  (.' \) (.' -' __________

Received on Sunday, 1 October 2000 16:07:45 UTC