Re: CSS for XML

At 04:43 PM 4/11/99 -0500, Paul Prescod wrote:
>"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*? 

Why the hostile rhetoric?

>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!

Actually, I'd just like to see you stop taking pointless potshots at an
excellent style language that people use for real work every day.  No
political battle needed - just stop badmouthing CSS at every opportunity.
The fewer battles, the better, in fact.

>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?

I was simply pointing out that CSS is a very capable style language and a
good 'natural' fit for XML - that "CSS is indeed a very
capable XML stylesheet language even if your document type is not designed
specifically for compatibility with CSS." to reverse an earlier claim of
yours.

On top of which, you're blasting CSS for work that isn't actually its job.
Haven't we said a number of times on this list that including images is a
job for XLink?  You've pointed out some language in the draft that seems to
point back at style languages, but I've also pointed out that it's only a
draft, and an unstable and old one at that.

Never mind.  Let's get this list back to SVG.


Simon St.Laurent
XML: A Primer
Sharing Bandwidth / Cookies
http://www.simonstl.com

Received on Sunday, 11 April 1999 18:29:47 UTC