- From: Jan Roland Eriksson <jrexon@newsguy.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 01:49:35 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
- Cc: Patrick Andries <pandries@iti.qc.ca>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 23:30:17 +0100, you wrote: >Patrick Andries wrote: > > Unfortunately, the CSS syntax is very hard (to use a euphemism) to > > interpret with XSLT. >XSLT sucks. (That's just my personal opinion.) True; XSLT shares only one admirable aspect with DSSSL, it's a "Turing Complete" programming language, but from there it grows into practically not usable. For the rest of what may be needed to do with structurally marked up content, rely on a parser to build a parse tree and then let separately programmed applications written in a more practical language take care of that parse tree as required. There are a lot of those languages, as well as prebuilt libraries, around. > > Is there an initiative to have CSS use XML syntax? >CSS is not a tree-like language, XML is not suitable for representing >the content of CSS. CSS is a "non procedural, descriptive only" language, it shall stay that way of course (advocating this to the current CSS WG, if it helps). >Please try to get away from the idea that everything must be written >in XML. XML is only useful for a limited subset of the document types >out there, namely linear tree-based structures. It's about understanding to use the right tool for the job at hand, the "bandwagon" fools a lot of people to think in opposite ways. Thanks for the input... -- Rex
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2002 19:51:24 UTC