Lists Home |
Date Index |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I'm reluctant to enter this debate, but...
/ "David Rosenborg" <firstname.lastname@example.org> was heard to say:
| David Carlisle wrote:
|> same here, but I don't really see the advantage in css styling in that
|> case. Except for those features that are only available in CSS
|> rather than native html/svg. In the case of FO there are no such
|> features as it's a superset of CSS rendering model (I think?).
| Ok, the reason I think XSL-FO should use CSS in the same way as
| SVG does is not because I want to use some specific styling properties
| of CSS. The reason is that I think CSS is a better tool for associating
| styling properties to nodes in a structure than XSLT is. The benefits come
| from of a combination of the compact notation and the cascading rules.
I disagree completely and emphatically. Right now I can decide when I
construct the fo:block what style properties it should have. I'm
agnostic about how the fo:block gets constructed. I'm likely to use
XSLT most of the time, but maybe I'll use something else. I think
If I was going to do this with CSS, I'd have to provide a class
attribute for the fo:block (or possibly several classes). Then later
I'd have to write a CSS stylesheet and associate them together (or
jump through hoops to get the stylesheet into the head of the
document). And all my style information would have vanished into a box
that I can't parse with my XML toolkit. Bleh.
CSS is great for some jobs, not for others. XSL FO has the same
| For the reasons I mention above I think it is much more efficient to manage
| a set of largely static styling properties in CSS files rather than in
| the XSLT files.
Conversly, it's much more efficient for me to manage my styling properties
in a common environment with the rest of my transformation tools.
Be seeing you,
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM | Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it
XML Standards Architect | kills all its pupils.--Berlioz
Sun Microsystems, Inc. |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----