On Tuesday 08 November 2005 09:31 am, Sam Steingold wrote:
> > * Peter Ring <> [2005-11-08 12:11:19 +0100]:
> >> It still won't have 10% of the capability of XSLT.
> >
> > To the best of my knowledge, XSLT does not actually render
> > anything. Using XSLT to transform XML into Netscape 4.7-compatible tag
> > soup HTML is -- at best -- a wasted effort.
>
> since CSS has no chance of ever generating index, TOC et al,
> it has not chance of replacing XSLT.
A modest bit of java script can accomplish the task of creating a TOC, a bit
more could create in index. That is not to say XSLT is completely worthless.
As I've already stated, Mozilla has some level of internal XSLT support which
could conceivably be leveraged to preform some tasks along these lines.
But the original statement to which you are replying did not assert that XSLT
could be replaced by CSS. The OP merely stated that much of what is now done
with XSLT is a waste of effort. That seems like an accurate assessment to
me. IMO, XSL is badly named. It should have been called XML Transform
Language.
Steven
