- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:34:25 -0400
- To: "Patrick Andries" <pandries@iti.qc.ca>
- cc: www-style@w3.org
> I think this thread has been long enough, you like CSS as it is : terse. Too > bad if it can't be automatically processed by the same standard used to > transfom XML (and XHTML) documents. It's a matter of what the goal is. If the goal is to have a syntax that can be easily processed via XSLT, then the syntax needs changing. If the goal is to have a syntax that is human-readable and human-understandable, then the syntax should stay as-is. IMO, the situation is comparable the that of (La)TeX and MathML, where there there are two formats -- one that is usable by humans and one that is meant to be machine-generated. In a similar vein, we have CSS and XSL-FO. Introducing yet a third way to style documents seems unnecessary. Boris -- Modern art is what happens when painters stop looking at girls and persuade themselves that they have a better idea. -- John Ciardi
Received on Thursday, 11 July 2002 22:34:28 UTC