Re: W3C-transformation language petition

Chris Maden wrote:

> "Is this something we can add to CSS without complicating the syntax?"
> If so, then they should add it.

I don't like this "they" and I don't like this "should". Can
you please tell us why a more complex syntax should block any extension ?
CSS _exists_ and has its own life. All your speech has the same flavor:
" let CSS die slowly ". CSS *users* (you seem to forget that CSS has more
users in the world than XSL does...) need and want CSS extensions. CSS+FP
WG members are also proposing extensions on their own.

CSS syntax can be more complicated. Its complexity will still be 1/100
of XSL complexity. For the moment, it seems that CSS syntax is much more
widely accepted by *users* than XSL syntax. Is there any web site with XSL
*style* (not tranformations) sheets and more than 100000 hits per day ?

> If not, XSL gives them the ability to say no.

Not only "if not". XSL *always* gives me the ability to say no !-)

</Daniel>, CSS+FP WG member, employee of a CSS user


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