RE: several messages

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Manos Batsis []
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 9:32 AM
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tim Bagot []
> > I'm not sure I follow your argument. Are you saying that the 
> > type should
> > be required in the markup because one type of style sheet 
> > might be more
> > important than another?
> Exactly. I think that we have lost the most important factor here: css
> is *useless* for XML presentation unless both the XML and CSS 
> documents
> are written in the following ways:
> 1) The  XML document is structured (um... has it's contents 
> in a certain
> order) in a way that display of contents is meaningful without
> transformation.
> 2) The CSS knows that and just styles the document sections 
> accordingly.
It sounds like your argument is simply that, when both are present,
transforming stylesheets should take precedence over layout stylesheets.
This doesn't resolve the issues about what happens when both a CSS and a
JSSS stylesheet are present, or when XSLT and a to-be-written transforming
stylesheet are present. Also, I believe it's the author's job to notice that
a simple layout stylesheet is useless and to not include one.
Fantasai's rules make sense and ought to be incorporated into the "next
version" of the XML Stylesheet Recommendation.

Jeffrey Yasskin

Received on Friday, 29 June 2001 11:08:31 UTC