Re: CSS for transformation

Paul Prescod wrote:
> I don't know that there is any real benefit in trading conspiracy
> theories. After an initial scan, the XSL formatting model looks much more
> complete than the CSS model. That doesn't mean that the CSS model is
> wrong, or stupid or was a waste of time to create. It is simply not
> sufficient. That's the nature of progress. Usually it isn't contentious to
> say that older technologies need to be updated to solve new problems.

  I don't think the XSL formatting model looks much more
complete than the CSS model. If you look at the CSS specification
and compare it to the XSL specification, you'll find differences
but these differences can be removed in CSS3. It's not a really big
problem. And if people wants an X, it's very easy to create the XCSS.
  XSL wants to poorly transform XML documents into another
XML document and it works (not well, but it works).
  They define a new matching way, different than the CSS way.
  XSL can't transform an XML document into an unknown format. I know, you
could add a namespace and do a post-processor, but is it the good solution ?
And, if it's not the goal of XSL, should we work on an another solution ?
  XSL can't process an XML document very well because it's not
a powerful language. They add xsl:if or xsl:for-each but who wants
to write a program with the XML syntax ? They said, we'll add a script solution
after because users can do stupid things with this, but for the moment,
they don't propose an another solution for this. So we have to write programs
to do the job.
  
  So, I'm looking for an another solution, different than XSL. Any idea ?

Philippe.  
---------
Philippe Le Hegaret
Philippe.Le_Hegaret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- http://www.inria.fr/koala/plh/
An electron of the World Wide Web.


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