Re: Default XSL stylesheet for XHTML documents

Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:

> I've just finished quite a bit of work with XSL-FO, and it seems to me
> that it goes quite a bit beyond what CSS attempts. I can easily see
> using XSLT+XSL-FO to lay out a complete book. I can't see doing that
> with CSS. Why? Here are a few reasons:
> 1. Page numbers!   XSL-FO makes it straight-forward not only to insert
> the current page number but to cross-reference to numbers of other
> pages. This is essential for building tables of contents, indexes,
> cross-references, and more.

CSS 3.

> 2. Footnotes and other floating objects.

CSS 3.

> 3. Running headers and running footers. Every book has these. I don't
> see them in CSS.

CSS 3.

> 4. More granular properties. Many CSS properties are just shorthands for
> more detailed XSL-FO properties.


> 5. Much better support for non right-to-left, top-to-bottom text;
> including text that mixes writing directions.

CSS 3, I18N WG.

> And of course there are the practical issues like the fact that XSL-FO
> lets me produce a high-quality PDF and bring it to the local print shop
> while CSS doesn't. Some of these are fixable problems, and some of them
> will likely be fixed (though I'm really curious to know how CSS could
> even begin to handle page number citations and cross-references) but I
> still expect that I'll be publishing printed books with XSL-FO long
> before I can think about doing that with CSS.
> CSS may be enough for the Web, but I don't think it's enough for print.

I agree 100% with that. Industry and Publishers need something
more powerful than the actual CSS. That's exactlt what I wrote
in a previous message.
On the other hand, the Web probably does not have the same
requirements and CSS is enough.


Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free address at

Received on Monday, 2 October 2000 08:39:14 UTC