RE: The XSL-List Digest V1 #169

> Paul Prescod wrote:
> >
> > 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).

Presumably because in the Holy Trinity of XML, XLL, ???, CSS didn't begin with
an "X".  Also, there's a bandwagon passing by and you have to be wearing
pointy-brackets to get on.  I do wonder what Postscript is going to look like
with pointy-brackets ...

I don't know how the Style and Activity pages could state it more clearly:
there's no "CSS's model", just the W3C Formatting Model -- for XSL *and* CSS,
the latter of which will work with both XML *and* HTML documents (and with a
much simpler syntax, IMHO).

Though CSS currently does not yet really do transformations of elements,
attributes, and content, see http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-stts2.html.en for a taste
of what's apparently on the way...


/Jelks


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