Re: Why transformation?

Daniel Glazman wrote:
> 
> Paul Prescod wrote:
> 
> > Presumably people who have
> > looked at the issue more closely than I have decided that CSS's formatting
> > model was not sufficient.
> 
> 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).

 Paul Prescod  - http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco

Bart: Dad, do I really have to brush my teeth?
Homer: No, but at least wash your mouth out with soda.


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