W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xsl-fo@w3.org > February 2001

Re: Using an XSL Formatter as an XSL-FO Web Browser

From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:24:24 GMT
Message-Id: <200102131624.QAA05558@penguin.nag.co.uk>
To: mf@w3.org
CC: www-xsl-fo@w3.org

> It also allows shorthand properties

It's a shame that these were inherited from CSS. I can understand why
XSL should share a model with CSS, but I don't really see why it should
share this particular bit of syntax. Which rather complicates the
inheritence model as you can not (conceptually) just look up the
ancestor:: axis to find the place where the property was set. You have to
decode shorthands, each with some ad hoc syntax. (supporting this in
xmltex would be a major complication).

> Other (minor) advantages I can think of are: it makes the FO file
> easier to read (in case you have to), it produces shorter documents

FO files are impossible to read in practice. When you _have_ to read
them to debug what's gone wrong (and I've been working on an FO file for
a 700 page document recently) it would probably be easier to have all
the attributes to hand rather than inherited. The thing's so big anyway
that making it bigger wouldn't harm. (I'm not against attribute
inheritence, just against that as an argument for making FO files

> Using the CSS syntax and mechanism has not just been a political move,
> it also makes sense on technical grounds. Common formatting properties
> are now developped by both working groups, and that's the way things
> should be IMO.

I agree that unifying with CSS model makes sense. Unifying with CSS
syntax (and shorthand properties are just a syntax feature) is not a
necessary consequence of that.


This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered
through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2001 11:24:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:09:52 UTC