- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:24:24 GMT
- 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 readable) > 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. David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2001 11:24:48 UTC