- 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