Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Jirka Kosek said: > juanrgonzaleza@c... wrote: > >> GIF, JPEG... is prefered over XMLs as SVG. > > LOL, do you think that it is failure of SVG that it can't capture adult > content? To be correct, you should compare SVG with vector formats (not > raster ones) like EPS, CGM, Flash. GIF, JPEG... [other format] is prefered over XMLs as SVG. Then when anyone is using GIFs, JPEGs for tasks SVG was designed is she/he wrong? Or maybe she/he cannot SVG. >> CSS is prefered over XSLT. > > For what? It doesn't much sense to process HTML by XSLT for styling > purposes. So of course there are more CSS files on web then XSLT files, > because there is more content in HTML then in raw XML. Mistake CSS is prefered over XSL-FO. >> Specific formats for other usages are also prefered. FOr example, MP3 >> over some XML language for music: e.g. MusicXML. > > Are you kidding? Comparing MP3 to MusicXML is like comparing a great > dinner with man/woman of your dreams with cookbook and guide to dating. Put your favourite XML music format here. >> PDF is prefered over XML formats like XSL-FO and similar. > > Hmm, comparing PDF to XSL-FO seems also quite strange. Do you think that > I prefer PDF over XSL-FO if I create all my PDF files from XSL-FO > files? I can imagine comparing XSL-FO and its implementations to TeX, > troff or to some proprietary formatting engines. I can imagine > comparing PDF to PS, XPS or PCL. But PDF and XSL-FO are not comparable > technologies. Whow! Then XSL-FO is not for the visible web. Juan R. Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
|
