Re: [xml-dev] so why don't more browsers support XSLT?

[David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>]

> The wysiwyg edit
> buffer is styled with CSS and it works fine.</shameless_plug>

Oh I should add, for a wysiwyg-ish edit buffer then CSS is far
preferable to XSLT, as editing in a transformed document means doing the
(possibly non existent) reverse transform from the tree being displayed
back to the source. However unles you are editing really simple
documents this means that what-you-see is not what-you-get but rather
a wysiwyg-style view of the source tree. This is a useful thing and I
have no complaints about that, but while I'm happy while editing to see
the source tree, possibly decorated and styled with CSS, that isn't what
I want to render in the final document view, I can't think of any
situations when I wouldn't want transformation at that stage.
(For browsers without transform, do the transformation in advance and
send them html, if they haven't a transformaton language engine there
seems little point in sending them xml)

David

_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.