Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Paul Prescod <email@example.com>
- To: "XML Developers' List" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 08:22:55 -0500
Heikki Toivonen wrote:
> We already have CSS. What we do not have is a good implementation. Here XSL
> is doing harm - all the hype moved to XSL which is an important contributor
> to the fact that we have not seen complete CSS implementations.
Do you have any evidence to this effect? It seems a key point to this
entire debate but I don't see any evidence for it.
How much of the Mozilla effort has been spent on XSL? As far as I
understand their CSS implementation is getting very good but they haven't
even started on XSL yet. The "XSL Bounty" will add new resources to the
picture: that's a good thing, right?
And if we are talking about IE, are you really going to claim that a
company with cash reserves rivaling the debt of some countries cannot
implement both? Microsoft was slacking off of its responsibility to
properly implement CSS before they were even interested in XML. As is
often the case, they will implement the minimum required to get by (check
out the namespaces implementation!). Note also that IE 5.0 supports
proprietary Microsoft CSS extensions. Perhaps they haven't given up on CSS
but are merely "embracing" and "extending" it. In any case, that's an
issue you should take up with Microsoft, not with the XSL WG.
As far as editors go, I know of not one that has an XSL implementation but
a couple that have CSS.
So where is this resource drain that is killing CSS?
Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)