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

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

From: Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom@accesscable.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 19:51:06 -0400
Message-ID: <006e01c09617$d5567080$089e4718@accesscable.net>
To: <www-xsl-fo@w3.org>
Boy, do I ever agree about this one. This syntax is shorthand for whose
benefit? The typical user is going to mangle this kind of shorthand at least
half the time by putting things in the wrong order.

If it's more verbose and broken out into components it's easier to read and
easier to handle. I.e. we stick with extended conformance & no shorthands.

This is a shorthand for writers of CSS, is what it is. FO preparers don't
handcode FO: but a lot of CSS stylesheets _are_ handcoded (maybe most). So
we're looking at a dubious (error-prone) labour-saving device for writers of
CSS stylesheets being fobbed off on FO. IMO.

Arved Sandstrom

----- Original Message -----
From: Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz@computing-services.oxford.ac.uk>
To: <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Cc: <pgrosso@arbortext.com>; <www-xsl-fo@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: Using an XSL Formatter as an XSL-FO Web Browser
> And I still think that 'font="10pt Helvetica bold"' is horrible in
> anyone's book. Thats not a shorthand, its plain laziness!
`border-style=solid' I find more comprehensible.
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2001 18:56:46 UTC

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