CSS for XML

"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
> 
> It is probably best for XSL partisans to stop taking shots at a very
> capable style sheet language 

CSS is very capable for XML style application compared to *what*? 

> simply because it doesn't live up to all of
> _your_ criteria.  

I am not the only person using images in my XML documents.

These are the criteria of the people doing generic markup -- the Linux
documentation team, XML editor vendors, academics, software vendors etc.
CSS cannot even be used for the most established generic markup languages
such as DocBook, TEI Lite and LinuxDoc.

I know you want to turn this into a political battle between style
languages but the truth is that I would love to see some simple extensions
to CSS so that I could use it in my projects that involve those document
types and hundreds of other non-HTML document types. People in the SGML
world are very familiar with and fond of simple non-transformational style
languages. If I can get away with making a Panorama or CSS stylesheet
instead of an XSL or DSSSL stylesheet then it makes sense to do so!

But if CSS does not support the features of stylesheet languages that
people already use (e.g. FOSI, DSSSL, Panorama) then it will either be
"embraced and extended" in the Office 2000 fashion or passed over.

> CSS is a very capable XML stylesheet language because you
> only need to provide one attribute - style - to 'design specifically for
> compatibility with CSS' rather than plugging in several hundred attributes.

I don't know what this particular issue has to do with the discussion
relating to images and graphics. How can I use the single style attribute
to insert a graphic?

-- 
 Paul Prescod  - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself
 http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco

By lumping computers and televisions together, as if they exerted a 
single malign influence, pessimists have tried to argue that the 
electronic revolution spells the end of the sort of literate culture 
that began with Gutenberg’s press. On several counts, that now seems 
the reverse of the truth.

http://www.economist.com/editorial/freeforall/19-12-98/index_xm0015.html

Received on Sunday, 11 April 1999 17:54:37 UTC