[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Future of XSL-FO at W3C??

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Future of XSL-FO at W3C??
• From: Norman Walsh <ndw@n...>
• Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:22:30 -0400
• In-reply-to: <007b01c276a9$45b0cb00$6500000a@KENNY> ("David Rosenborg"'smessage of "Fri, 18 Oct 2002 15:21:30 +0200")
• References: <000001c2767e$995003f0$2001a8c0@bryans><200210180843.JAA20498@p...><002401c2768c$455f07b0$6500000a@KENNY><200210180952.KAA27609@p...><004701c27691$738b4e00$6500000a@KENNY><200210181038.LAA27821@p...><007b01c276a9$45b0cb00$6500000a@KENNY>
• User-agent: Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) Emacs/21.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I'm reluctant to enter this debate, but...

/ "David Rosenborg" <darolst@p...> was heard to say:
| David Carlisle wrote:
|> same here, but I don't really see the advantage in css styling in that
|> case. Except for those features that are only available in CSS
|> rather than native html/svg. In the case of FO  there are no such
|> features as it's a superset of CSS rendering model (I think?).
|
| Ok, the reason I think XSL-FO should use CSS in the same way as
| SVG does is not because I want to use some specific styling properties
| of CSS. The reason is that I think CSS is a better tool for associating
| styling properties to nodes in a structure than XSLT is. The benefits come
| from of a combination of the compact notation and the cascading rules.

I disagree completely and emphatically. Right now I can decide when I
construct the fo:block what style properties it should have. I'm
agnostic about how the fo:block gets constructed. I'm likely to use
XSLT most of the time, but maybe I'll use something else. I think
that's irrelevant.

If I was going to do this with CSS, I'd have to provide a class
attribute for the fo:block (or possibly several classes). Then later
I'd have to write a CSS stylesheet and associate them together (or
jump through hoops to get the stylesheet into the head of the
document). And all my style information would have vanished into a box
that I can't parse with my XML toolkit. Bleh.

CSS is great for some jobs, not for others. XSL FO has the same
characteristic.

| For the reasons I mention above I think it is much more efficient to manage
| a set of largely static styling properties in CSS files rather than in
| the XSLT files.

Conversly, it's much more efficient for me to manage my styling properties
in a common environment with the rest of my transformation tools.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

- -- 
Norman.Walsh@S...    | Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it
XML Standards Architect | kills all its pupils.--Berlioz
Sun Microsystems, Inc.  | 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQE9sAsVOyltUcwYWjsRAhyWAJwOWVMLJ5RGzQ780jgDSMcj5ZL1hQCfWZBD
+AB/5Lo9/qA7kTr5ybfPKwA=
=T8kv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Future of XSL-FO at W3C??
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• References:
  • RE: Future of XSL-FO at W3C??
    • From: "bryan" <bry@i...>
  • Re: Future of XSL-FO at W3C??
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: Future of XSL-FO at W3C??
    • From: "David Rosenborg" <darolst@p...>
  • Re: Future of XSL-FO at W3C??
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: Future of XSL-FO at W3C??
    • From: "David Rosenborg" <darolst@p...>
  • Re: Future of XSL-FO at W3C??
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: Future of XSL-FO at W3C??
    • From: "David Rosenborg" <darolst@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Future of XSL-FO at W3C??
• Next by Date: Re: Future of XSL-FO at W3C??
• Previous by thread: Re: Future of XSL-FO at W3C??
• Next by thread: Re: Future of XSL-FO at W3C??
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread