Lists Home |
Date Index |
G. Ken Holman wrote:
> I cannot subscribe to your conclusion that "FO is far too complex and
> verbose" ... it is but a hierarchical node tree expression of the
> semantics to apply to the contained content ... and XML is the best way
> there is to express hierarchies ... and lengthy multi-property
> CSS-style-like attribute expressions are not at all hierarchical.
What I had in mind is avoidance of redundancy in presentation
information, in much the same way htm:div elements with 'class' or
'style' attributes are used instead of htm:font and htm:center.
>> Just my quarter of a euro.
> I think your debate is far more worthwhile than this, though I don't
> agree with your conclusions.
Thanks. Well, reading a friendly reply like yours, made me try and find
arguments against myself. What came out of this is simply that XSL-FO
presentation info can be transformed via XSLT, something that would be
almost impossible by using CSS notation for that information...
> I hope this is considered helpful.