[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Sounds like the distinction between Model/View/Controller, say, "Structure/Style/Medium"? (In terms of transformation processes, does this pattern already have another name in the XML community?) You don't really need pipelining to pursue that strategy, but it is certainly a popular approach.
Another way to look at it, is that CSS is part of the target grammar. Some part of that can be a set of immutable libraries, another part can be functionally derived or tunneled directly from the input. Either part might be something to tweak with a step in a pipeline (for, e.g. different media), but a pipeline isn't necessary to accomplish the task.
Regards,
Mitch
Alaric B Snell wrote:
> Mitch Amiano wrote:
snip/
>> One should use the best tool for the job. Sometimes that does mean avoiding XSLT and conveniently attaching CSS styles. Other times it means going with a full-bore transformation. The diversity of glitches in implementations of both XSLT and CSS mean that in the general case there is rarely a clear-cut path. Both are valuable components in the toolkit.
>
>
>
> From my efforts with turning custom XML formats into nice pretty HTML for display, I'd say that the XSLT was fine for producing tables of contents, indices, cross references and whatnot - but it would have been lovely to be able to leave the fine detail to CSS, seperating the process into "structural transformation" and "styling". Perhaps a pipelined approach is the way to go.
>
>>
>> Mitch
>>
>
> ABS
>
>
>
|
