On Tuesday 08 November 2005 12:37 pm, Dave Pawson wrote:
> So why are you slagging off docbook then?
I'm not. If I see problems I express what I see. Trust me, the things
I /don't/ like do not get the attention I am giving DocBook.
> > It is specifically intended as a means of
> > rendering it. I don't believe there are very many CSS functions which
> > can be achieved by XSLT without the assistance of something similar to
> > CSS. The current practice of transforming DocBook into HTML is merely
> > hiding the fact that it's relying on what amounts to CSS for the final
> > rendering.
>
> False.
As you will.
http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/layout/style/nsComputedDOMStyle.h
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Gecko_DOM_Reference
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/inspector/
http://www.mozilla.org/docs/dom/technote/tn-dom-table/
> > Web browsers are ideal tools for processing XML.
>
> XSLT implementations are far better IMHO.
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Transforming_XML_with_XSLT#XSLT.2FXPath_reference
> > There are roles for XSLT. Many of its capabilities are probably, as yet,
> > unimagined. But many of the current applications I've seen seem to be
> > workarounds to address the lack to good tools supporting the existing W3C
> > recommendations for CSS and XML.
>
> More ... misapprehensions.
>
> > Quite surprisingly, one of the most capable
> > challengers to XSLT that I am aware of is Mathematica.
>
> Pardon?
http://documents.wolfram.com/mathematica/Add-onsLinks/\
XMLCapabilities/TransformingXML/ComparingXSLTAndMathematica.html
Steven
