[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> 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.
Surely xsl-fo is a _result_ of that division how can you say that XSL
does not support the division of content markup and styling?
> Future of XSL-FO at W3C, I
> suggest XSL-FO 2 allows CSS styling.
I find this a bizarre suggestion!
compare,
CSS styled:
x {
display: block;
text-align: right;}
....
<x> ..... </x>
and XSL styled
<xsl:template match="p">
<fo:block text-align="right">
<xsl:apply-templates/>
</fo:block>
</xsl:template>
....
<x> ..... </x>
In what way is the separation in CSS greater?
In this simple example it is essentially the same: just a syntactuc
difference but in general the XSL version is more flexible and more
powerful as being XML it is much more amenable to automated processing
and Xpath selction possibilities are more unifiform and more powerful
than the rather ad hoc collection of css selection constructs.
XSL-FO is a linearisation of the _result_ it would be peverse indeed to
state that the result of applying FO formatting could not be a styled
object but rather something to which you had to apply a stylesheet in a
different language.
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.
|
