- From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 13:16:53 -0700
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Ian Hickson <ianh@netscape.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
From: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net> > * "Ian Hickson" <ianh@netscape.com> 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. Tantek ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why "version 5.0" shouldn't be skipped. http://www.microsoft.com/mac/ie/
Received on Sunday, 1 October 2000 16:15:09 UTC