> I guess this is where we differ in our opinions. (Or I
> misuderstand the intent).
> I (say) want rough and ready output for a website.
> Peter wants very slick presentations for his legal customers.
I beg to differ that we differ ... (or something).
If we have
- mean clean lean XHTML that accurately represent
the rendering *intention* without messing with
the actual rendition
- a modular CSS that reflects the *types* of
rendition intention, take advantage of the
'Cascading' in CSS and some way to represent
property groups
it is piece of cake to change fonts, colors, margins,
linking behaviour, etc. in a typographically consistent
manner.
The classic showpiece is css Zen Garden:
http://www.csszengarden.com/
Another example that demonstrate what CSS can accomplish
in a dramatic fashion:
http://www.themaninblue.com/writing/
The main point of using CSS is actually that you can get rough
and ready output for a website, while I re-purpose the same XHTML
for an e-book, and someone else syndicates the content into a
glossy weblog.
kind regards
Peter Ring
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Pawson [mailto:]
> Sent: 9. november 2005 18:15
> To: Peter Ring
> Cc: DocBook
> Subject: RE: [docbook] Whatever happened too CSS+XML?
>
>
> On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 00:43 +0100, Peter Ring wrote:
>
> > Earlier this year, it was suggested on the docbook-apps list
> >that lean clean XHTML output might be desirable for some
> purposes [2].
> >As Bob Stayton says [3]:
> >
> > "Since this XHTML would be dependent on CSS for styling, I
> think the spec would have to include a template for the CSS."
>
> If I ever get round to it, I'd like to try Norm's rev 5 approach to
> customisation
> for this. I still think it's a worker, and a common format could
> possibly meet the 80%.
> http://norman.walsh.name/2005/11/05/dbtiny
> >
> > This "template for the CSS" would amount to a declarative
> spec for rendering expectations of (a significant part of)
> DocBook elements.
> > The CSS should be modular to better refelect the various genii and
> species of DocBook >elements. A modular template might rely on
> extensions similar to XXE's [4], or a trivial
> > representation of the CSS syntax in XML.
>
> I guess this is where we differ in our opinions. (Or I
> misuderstand the
> intent).
> I (say) want rough and ready output for a website.
> Peter wants very slick presentations for his legal customers.
>
> I can't see a common CSS model there, can you?
>
> I like the way I can ask the stylesheets to hang class
> attributes for me
> to use with CSS,
> but I'll use purple background where Peter will want Royal blue :-)
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Dave Pawson
> XSLT + Docbook FAQ
> http://www.dpawson.co.uk
>
>
