- From: Robin Berjon <robin@knowscape.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 19:02:16 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
On Wednesday 10 July 2002 18:48, Christian Roth wrote: > Reading the discussions on this subject, I am wondering why it is > obviously considered a bad idea to create an XML DTD or XML Schema > describing CSS and have it attached to the CSS specification as a > recommended practice in a non-normative way? The same thing came up not so long ago about SVG path data. Many people appear to agree that having an extended non-normative XML expression for SVG path data would be a good idea so that one could do SVG -> SAX filter -> SVG+XML path data -> XSLT (manipulates the path data) -> SVG+XML path data -> SAX filter -> SVG. However it didn't interest enough people (or people enough) that it actually got implemented[1]. Don't get me wrong, I'm not *against* CSS-X. I just think that there's too little interest for it to happen beyond the more or less ad hoc encodings one may develop internally. I'm also not sure that it's a good idea to crowd an already large spec with that extra information. One positive thing I see for CSS-X is that it could help define a proper CSS DOM unlike the current aborted one, but that's another rant altogether. [1] not quite true actually, I do have a quick hack of those two SAX filters but I didn't care enough about that issue myself to finish and release them. -- Robin Berjon <robin@knowscape.com> -- for hire: http://robin.berjon.com/ The more you run over a dog, the flatter it gets.
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2002 13:02:54 UTC