RE: The XSL-List Digest V1 #169
> Paul Prescod wrote: > > > > Strange assumption, indeed. The CSS and XSL formatting models are > > currently under harmonization and it seems quite impossible to > > harmonize two things if there is a too big difference between them. > > I don't know how I could have stated this any more clearly, but: if CSS's > model was sufficient, they would have just used CSS's model and there > would have been no two things to harmonize, right? I didn't claim that > CSS's formatting model was miles away from XSL's. I merely said that it > *was not sufficient* (in the eyes of the people who decided not to use > it). Presumably because in the Holy Trinity of XML, XLL, ???, CSS didn't begin with an "X". Also, there's a bandwagon passing by and you have to be wearing pointy-brackets to get on. I do wonder what Postscript is going to look like with pointy-brackets ... I don't know how the Style and Activity pages could state it more clearly: there's no "CSS's model", just the W3C Formatting Model -- for XSL *and* CSS, the latter of which will work with both XML *and* HTML documents (and with a much simpler syntax, IMHO). Though CSS currently does not yet really do transformations of elements, attributes, and content, see http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-stts2.html.en for a taste of what's apparently on the way... /Jelks XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format