- From: Patrick Andries <pandries@iti.qc.ca>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:43:15 -0700
- To: <www-style@w3.org>
----- Message d'origine ----- De: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU> > 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. I agree with this diagnosis. > 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. One problem is that browsers only support one format (and incidentally XSL-FO lack selectors, that is left to XSLT), so only the human-readable aspect is cared for dealing with documents written for browsers. P. Andries
Received on Thursday, 11 July 2002 22:43:16 UTC