Re: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists as tables)

> All I get is the public messages - in public, I'd have to say the ratio of
> XSL dissing CSS to CSS dissing XSL, especially in the early days, is about
> 10:1. (I just walked through the public archives to confirm that. Your
> mileage may vary.)

I was thinking of the fact that at least two articles have been published
dissing XSL in favour of CSS. I know of no similar articles doing it the
other way around.

Furthermore, I wonder how many "XSL dissing CSS" messages are really just
"CSS doesn't do foo. XSL does do foo. I need foo. Therefore XSL is better
for me".

> I do find it funny, and somewhat sad, that the two communities stay in
> their own little worlds - XSL on xsl-list, and CSS on www-style.  The
> cross-fertilization might well have been interesting.

I agree.

> >I am not aware of any implementers who wanted to implement XSL FOs more
> >because of reconciliation with CSS!
>
> Heck, I offered to work on a CSS->XSL FO converter for FOP, though I can't
> say I've found time for it.

I'd like to see it happen. Back when FOP was written in Python, Lars Marius
Garshol and I were talking about a CSS version. Interestingly, adding CSS
support to FOP means treating CSS as defining formatting objects, which it
does in many respects, although Hakon Lie might not see it that way :-)

> I have, however, heard of several other cases
> where people are pondering using CSS and XSL on a more 'interchangeable'
> basis now that the two vocabularies are compatible.  I've also heard from
> several Web developers who were excited to hear that their existing CSS
> knowledge would be of use in XSL, which significantly expands the
community
> of potential early adopters.

But I still stand by my comment that I am not aware of any implementors who
were motivated by CSS compatibility.

> >In my experience, many of the people who find XSL FOs compelling are
> >typesetting specialists. Those typesetting specialists who have doubts
about
> >XSL FOs seem to have even greater doubts about CSS.
>
> If they really want to do it 'right', without 'political' interference
from
> the W3C's existing body of standards, I'd politely suggest that they find
a
> body more tuned to the needs of typesetters.

I think the XSL WG *is* tuned to the needs of typesetters.

>  Or work with DSSSL, which
> seems _very much_ alive, despite several reports of its demise.

So you recommend DSSSL, but at the same time criticise XSL. Now I'm really
confused! :-)



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