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

Re: Re: Can XLink be fixed?

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 15:25:44 -0400
• In-reply-to: <87fzxgdj6g.fsf@n...>

> CSS-in-XML sounds like a good idea. Let's see, it's a bag of
> properties attached to a CSS Selector. 

The work I'm doing in MOE is about creating documents that represent the
properties applied by selectors to particular elements, not selector
preservation.

> (<rant>What happened to the
> Last Call comments to rename the "Selectors" document[1] to "CSS3
> Selectors". More paperwork to dig through...Sigh.</rant>)

Probably a good idea, though maybe we should rename XPath to XSLT
Selectors...

> The bag of properties thing would be easy to deal with, but the set of
> selectors is starting to look awfully ugly. 
> "nth-last-child()"...Eeek!?

That was my initial response to XPath.  

<plug>It's only recently that I've gotten over that aversion, mostly
thanks to editing John Simpson's new XPath & XPointer book.  (Apologies
for the plug, but it's one of the few books I've edited which has made
me fonder of the technologies it covered instead of merely
frustrated.)</plug>

> Simplicity is loosing everywhere, ain't it?

It already lost in XPath - what's the surprise for CSS?  I'll be happy
so long as CSS3 stays simpler than XPath 2.0.  Or maybe that's just my
cynicism speaking!


-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
    • From: Norman Walsh <ndw@n...>
  • Gah
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • Re: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
    • From: Norman Walsh <ndw@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
• Next by Date: Gah
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
• Next by thread: Gah
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread