CSS, XSL & "Religious Schisms" (RE: syntax feedback)

> From:	Sebastian Rahtz [SMTP:s.rahtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
	>what has always amazed me, as an observer, is who the great
defenders
	>of CSS are. it is quite recent, it has never been fully
implemented,
	>and it is agree by all parties to be a nasty hack. its a sort
of orc,
	>so far as one see. So why, when XML and XSL come along, is it
not
	>allowed to die an honourable death? where are these millions of
users?
	>when did you last see a web page using CSS?

	I'm a fan of CSS.  No, it's not perfect but it's pretty easy to
use
	and does at least 75% of what I need it to do without undo
agony.
	And, yes, I do use it on many (though not on all) pages that
	I've created.

	I think the current debate over CSS/DSSSL/XSL goes back to
completely
	forgetting that you have a huge range of people using the Web
and online
	HTML-based doc.  You have early-adopters who are always going to
	want the latest and greatest of whatever is available, whether
	it's a standard or not.  But you have
	many other folks who struggle to remember to put <p> between
	every paragraph. <blink> is still a big deal to about 10% of the
	folks out there on the Web.  And one of the useful things about 
	browsers is supposed to be their forgiving natures.

	CSS is a lovely tool for those of us who are in the middle.  We
find HTML's
	limitations on format frustrating and we don't have the
technical resources
	to build pages dynamically.  CSS lets you tag things any way you
want
	and then, when you want to make formatting changes, you only
need to make
	them in one place.  That for many of us is what makes CSS so
handy.

	Many folks are on the sidelines about XSL.  I'm sure I'll need
to learn it
	eventually, particularly once I delve more deeply into XML.  But
there's
	no reason why both CSS and XSL can't both be maintained.  They
don't
	appear to be in conflict.  




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