[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> Paul writes:
> > That's fine with me. But let's not pretend that the useful thing
> > going on is infoset augmentation. The infoset augmentation is only
> > interesting to language lawyers. The CSS-Link *syntax* is the
> > relevant proposal.
>
> Sure, though I'll admit that one of my projects with MOE is supporting
> CSS both as an annotation and as an explicit CSS-in-XML syntax.
>
> (I'm trying to find some pathways between CSS and XSL-FO, since support
> for CSS print media is poorer than suppoort for XSL-FO. Making the CSS
> explicit makes it possible to use it in XSLT processing to generate
> XSL-FO...)
>
> In any case, I think this discussion's just getting started, and
> hopefully it'll be interesting.
>
>
I think this is the same kind of problem I found when I was trying to
convert some XHTML strict to XSL-FO. The post is at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/XSL-FO/message/2139
(essentially, how do I map <p class="important warning">...</p> to an
equivalent XSL-FO without parsing a stylesheet, or equally ugly, the
class attribute.)
--
J. David Eisenberg http://catcode.com/
|
