On Monday 14 November 2005 04:16 am, Jirka Kosek wrote:
> Noah Slater wrote:
> > I know... but is it really that wrong to combine the two like this? Is
> > there no way of conceivably mixing the two in harmony? Perhaps a
> > <html:a> embedded in a <link> etc? A bit hacky I know - but you don't
> > loose any semantics.
>
> Well, if you would like type link twice and create custom DocBook grammar.
>
> > What would be the harm of using only
> > <html:table>, <html:img> and <html:a> in replacements of the DocBook
> > elements in your document to produce a perfectly valid document which
> > could be rendered by most browsers?
>
> Whole thread was about ability to use DocBook XML directly with CSS. As
> you can see, this is not possible, you must use XHTML elements for some
> things. In this case doing *automatic* (eg. using XSLT) conversion from
> DocBook to XHTML seems as way to go.
>
> > example) the overall semantics are the same. Does it really matter
> > which namespace it belongs to in this instance?
>
> For processing tools yes.
I posted a link to this discussion's archive, as well as a very brief synopsis
to netscape.public.mozilla.xml on news.mozilla.org. I really wish I could
dedicate more time to this topic. It is important to me. Unfortunately, I
have other pressing projects which need my attention. I hope people can work
productively to address the objections raised against using XML+CSS without
the XHTML translation step.
Steven
