Re: Default XSL stylesheet for XHTML documents

From: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <>

> * "Ian Hickson" <> 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? XML documents can be transformed to
> XHTML documents and styled with CSS equally so noone needs XSL? Why didn't
> anyone notice that and stopped XSL development?

Nature tends to be redundant.

> | 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.

No, what Ian is trying to say (which I fully agree with) is that something
which is _shipping_ [CSS 1.0 (spec & two full implementations), CSS 2.0
(spec & >90% implementations)] _is_ better than something which is not.

And of course I'm sure Ian is not implying anything about superiority via
higher version number.


Why "version 5.0" shouldn't be skipped.

Received on Sunday, 1 October 2000 16:15:09 UTC