Lists Home |
Date Index |
> The only potentially redundant elements
>are fo:list-block and related children (can be emulated with a table).
I don't think it's sensible to talk about redundant elements unless of
course you have elements that do exactly the same things.
Fo:block-container could be considered redundant in a lot of uses, in
that you can emulate it via fo:block. Emulation implies to me, ugly
hacks, which god knows I am responsible for more than my share.
>One issue could be that there is no equivalent of a 'class' attribute,
>which indeed causes a lot of repeated sets of attributes on FO
>elements. However, it seems this was intentional, you'll find the
>equivalent of "class" in XSLT as use-attribute-sets. I wish
>xsl:attribute-set and use-attribute-sets had been put in XSLFO
>instead of XSLT.
I think the basic argument is that there is a particular division of
labor that the existence of CSS/XSLT/Markup Language has encouraged. It
is a division of labor that we see with Open Ebook, with Html/Xhtml, we
can even see it with SVG. We do not see it with XSL-FO, I can not ever
consider this as anything but a mistake. Mistakes occur naturally of
course, this one seems to me to have been engendered from the original
idea of XSLT/XSL-FO = DSSSL, which was probably in hindsight not that
great a way to think about the matter. Future of XSL-FO at W3C, I
suggest XSL-FO 2 allows CSS styling.