[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 08:33 AM 7/9/2003 -0400, Mike Kozlowski wrote:
>That XSLT is the transformation component of a complete stylesheet suite,
>and that XSL-FO is the part of that suite that most closely approximates
>CSS's capabilities, ought to make it even more clear that XSLT is
>complementary to CSS. It was, after all, explicitly designed to be
>complementary to XSL-FO.
>
>XSL-FO competes with CSS, yes. HTML 3.2's formatting capabilities compete
>with CSS, yes. And XSLT is complementary with XSL-FO, HTML 3.2, and CSS.
Wow. The discussion here began long ago with transformational styling (XSL)
vs. annotative styling (CSS), and seems to have mired in various ways of
pretending such a conflict does not exist and never existed because you can
use XSLT to do produce things which happens to use CSS. I stated a long
time ago that the problems weren't technical, but rather political, and the
answers I seem to get suggest that the lack of a technical problem
indicates the lack of a real problem, which is frustrating, to say the least.
Maybe more XML folks should spend time on web design lists and watch the
cycle of people trying to decide if this weird pointy XSLT stuff is worth
learning, and what it costs. Some people do make it past the learning
curve, while lots of other people wonder why this extra layer of stuff is
needed (especially in IE) to work with XML.
|
