Re: Leventhal's challenge misses the point (long)
>There are not yet 100% CSS implementations in released products, which >Michael also claims is partly due to XSL. And suppose there are: interactive >web page means DOM and scripts so what do we need XSL for? For making different transformations from one (XML) document created in one company to another (XML) document that would be more convinient for another company. XSL at least provides some ways to do it in resanoble way. FO may help in layout part. (To be honest, I don't think it was the original idea of FO. I feel that transformation part seems to be in better shape than FO, but FO part improves fast). Of course, you can do it in perl. I tried both. perl for years and XSL for days. I like XSL and think that it'l survive, because it is good. Yes - it's a bit strange... Actualy, perl is strange as well. Actualy, first C compiler was (is?) also kind of strange software... Hovewer, the biggest problem I see with XSL / CSS is that they are not using the exactly common formatting objects ( with XSL being a superset of CSS ), but as far as I understand you could easy render CSS into FO. Rendering FO into CSS seems to possible only to some degree ( sufficient for the real life, from my point of view ). When I tried to put XSL into Mozilla, I firstly tried just to render FO into XML + CSS. I found the quality of such rendering to be sufficient in real life (especialy comparing with the shape of existing FO implementations), even it is actualy a 'logical hack'. Logical hacks are bad, so I still think that XSL FO / CSS issue will continue to appear in maling lists for a long time. Rgds.Paul. 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