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

["Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>]

On Fri, 2001-11-16 at 11:18, David Carlisle wrote:
> 
>    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?

My favorite style sheets tend to look like this:
catalog {display:table;}
book {display:table-row;}
book * {display:table-cell; padding:5px;}

Where all that's involved is a really simple hierarchy.  CALS it ain't,
but HTML it ain't and rocket science it ain't either. 

In practice, the structure of the document may not even have been
considered tabular by its creators, who certainly weren't thinking in
terms of HTML.

That's all I meant.  If you want CALS, you're welcome to it.

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
"Every day, in every way, I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue