[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Jirka Kosek said:
> juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com wrote:
>
>> GIF, JPEG... is prefered over XMLs as SVG.
>
> LOL, do you think that it is failure of SVG that it can't capture adult
> content? To be correct, you should compare SVG with vector formats (not
> raster ones) like EPS, CGM, Flash.
GIF, JPEG... [other format] is prefered over XMLs as SVG.
Then when anyone is using GIFs, JPEGs for tasks SVG was designed is she/he
wrong? Or maybe she/he cannot SVG.
>> CSS is prefered over XSLT.
>
> For what? It doesn't much sense to process HTML by XSLT for styling
> purposes. So of course there are more CSS files on web then XSLT files,
> because there is more content in HTML then in raw XML.
Mistake CSS is prefered over XSL-FO.
>> Specific formats for other usages are also prefered. FOr example, MP3
>> over some XML language for music: e.g. MusicXML.
>
> Are you kidding? Comparing MP3 to MusicXML is like comparing a great
> dinner with man/woman of your dreams with cookbook and guide to dating.
Put your favourite XML music format here.
>> PDF is prefered over XML formats like XSL-FO and similar.
>
> Hmm, comparing PDF to XSL-FO seems also quite strange. Do you think that
> I prefer PDF over XSL-FO if I create all my PDF files from XSL-FO
> files? I can imagine comparing XSL-FO and its implementations to TeX,
> troff or to some proprietary formatting engines. I can imagine
> comparing PDF to PS, XPS or PCL. But PDF and XSL-FO are not comparable
> technologies.
Whow! Then XSL-FO is not for the visible web.
Juan R.
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
|
