Re: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists as tables)
[more politics] At 12:20 PM 10/14/99 -0400, James Tauber wrote: >I was thinking of the fact that at least two articles have been published >dissing XSL in favour of CSS. I know of no similar articles doing it the >other way around. After the blasts on this mailing list, is it really surprising that authors took to other forums? CSS is, after all, the standard on the defensive here. (And please don't repeat the line about how CSS and XSL don't compete.) >Furthermore, I wonder how many "XSL dissing CSS" messages are really just >"CSS doesn't do foo. XSL does do foo. I need foo. Therefore XSL is better >for me". No, I'm afraid it was more things like 'The CSS formatting model is defective'. That's a direct quote from a live and unrecorded conversation, but there are several similar threads in the early history of XSL-list: CSS, XSL & "Religious Schisms" (RE: syntax feedback) syntax feedback (espec. http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list/archive/msg01413.html) why split? (espec. http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list/archive/msg01413.html, which was at least friendlier) CSS for Transformation (espec http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list/archive/msg00950.html) Okay, enough digging in the archives. The archive file is nearly 1MB long and slow in both NS4 and IE5. >> I do find it funny, and somewhat sad, that the two communities stay in >> their own little worlds - XSL on xsl-list, and CSS on www-style. The >> cross-fertilization might well have been interesting. > >I agree. A lost opportunity. I'd be curious to know how many people subscribe to both lists. >> If they really want to do it 'right', without 'political' interference >from >> the W3C's existing body of standards, I'd politely suggest that they find >a >> body more tuned to the needs of typesetters. > >I think the XSL WG *is* tuned to the needs of typesetters. I'm aware of the W3C's desire to let the Web work in both print and live display, but I'm not sure that tuning in to typesetters' desires is the best way to go about doing that. Fortunately, the drive for a new and different formatting model was eventually dropped, though only after its proponents had done their best to tarnish the CSS model. >> Or work with DSSSL, which >> seems _very much_ alive, despite several reports of its demise. > >So you recommend DSSSL, but at the same time criticise XSL. Now I'm really >confused! :-) If typesetters want a standard for typesetting, they've already got one. Why would they need XSL? It's quite consistent - if you want DSSSL formatting features, stick to DSSSL. Don't try to pin the needs of one media (print) onto the needs of another (hypertexts) when there are tools available to support both. The typesetters are ticked that XSL won't be their dream machine, while the Web developers are ticked that XSL only came around to support the existing and Web-focused formatting model provided by CSS after extended dallying with the typesetters. It sounds like no one's really happy. So let those who want powerful FO vocabularies migrate to DSSSL, and those who can cope with a Web-centric vocabulary stick around with XSLT and CSS. Simon St.Laurent XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed. Building XML Applications Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical Sharing Bandwidth / Cookies http://www.simonstl.com 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