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

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

   On Fri, 2001-11-16 at 06:50, David Carlisle wrote:
   > For displaying arbitrary XML it seems that a transformation language is
   > always going to be required. It doesn't have to be XSLT: dsssl, ominimark
   > perl, any programming language with dom access, would all do. But
   > you need _something_  unless your XML is so close to HTML that CSS can
   > be used. 

   Huh?  All you need to use CSS is a document structure that's similar to
   the structure you want to present.  No weird HTML magic there.

I may or may not agree with that, I'm not sure what you mean by similar.

If I have a CALS table and I want to display it in a browser, CSS isn't
what I want. If I have a table markup that follows the HTML table model
but with my own element names, CSS will do the job, by decorating my XML
elements with CSS table properties.T hat isn't a controversial statement
is it?

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.