W3C-transformation language petition

Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>Hi Oren.
>
>A counter example? Hmmm, I hate being asked to back up my spurious
>opinions. I far prefer to shoot my mouth off and run, but now you've called
>me on it....
>
>OK, say we want to address the issue of not just Web pages and printed
>documents etc., but realise that Web applications are on the increase, in
>particular on the intranet. So, maybe on the basis of that we decide it
>would be nice to have...
>
><fo:window>
>     ...content...
></fo:window>
>
>...
>
>So, straight back at ya Oren. How might the above be expressed as cleanly
>"the CSS way"?


You said it:

>And given that a way can be found (display: window; maybe, although the CSS
>paradigm starts to get strained), shall we inflict such stretches of the
>CSS fabric every time we want to extend XSL?


And I'd say that it is "straining the paragigm" no more and no less then
adding <fo:window> to FOs would be straining the FO paradigm.

>As for the large body of your post that suggests broadly that the worth of
>FOs will be resolved by the market place... hmmm... I've one thing to say
>to you Oren..... *Windows* :P


I didn't say I _liked_ the fact that the W3C has delegated the choice to the
market. A "windows" typeof solution is all too probable; in fact I feel the
most likely outcome would be adoption of CSS using the current syntax, flaws
and all, which as I've said I believe to be the worst of all possible
worlds.

Nevertheless, it seems this is the way the W3C has chosen - by having two
standard ways to do almost exactly the same thing, each with its own
somewhat different tradeoffs. Imagine there were two incompatible mechanisms
for namespaces - say PIs and the current mechanism - and the W3C would make
both into standard recommendations.

Have fun,

    Oren Ben-Kiki


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list