- From: Ian Hickson <ianh@netscape.com>
- Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 13:10:21 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- cc: www-style@w3.org
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 `- , ) - > ) \ irc.mozilla.org:Hixie _________________________ (.' \) (.' -' __________
Received on Sunday, 1 October 2000 16:07:45 UTC