- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 04:29:29 +0200
- To: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- CC: www-svg@w3.org
Paul Prescod wrote: > > Chris Lilley wrote: > > > > > However, CSS (at least CSS1) was created before XML (and therefore slightly > > > kludgy when it comes to XML?), > > > > No, it works fine with XML, but CSS2 works better because the selectors > > are more flexible. The actual apparatus of both CSS1 and CSS2 works fine > > with XML, and there are several CSS1 implementations that style XML > > documents. > > I think that that is overstating the case. As near as I can tell CSS has > no way of allowing authors to choose their own element type names for > links or graphics. Correct; and, that is a good thing. The spec that describes how authors describe links of various types in their document is XLink, not CSS. > Unless I am wrong, Your statement is correct, but the inferences you drew from it are not. > information owners would have to > design their document types around CSS No, not at all. > I think that CSS could be an > excellent language for XML editor stylesheets. It is already used in at least three WYSIWYG editor products that I am aware of - Amaya, XMetal and Dreamweaver. The mail/editing component of Mozilla also promises to do this. -- Chris
Received on Saturday, 10 April 1999 22:31:52 UTC